Legal Opinion
DeCrosta v. City of New Haven
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided January 5, 1935PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJennings, J.
The sole reason of appeal in this case is the refusal of the court to set aside the jury's ver diet for the plaintiff. The only question before us is whether there is evidence from which the jury could reasonably have reached their conclusion. The jury could have found the following facts:
February 10th, 1933, was a fair day. At 1.15 a.m. on February 11th it started to snow. The storm was of blizzard proportions and continued without interruption until 9.15 a.m., when the snow turned to sleet. The sleet stopped at 10.30 a.m. and there was no further precipitation to the time of the accident.…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Carl v. City of New HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1919
- Stevens v. NeligonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
- Ritter v. City of SheltonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1927
- Krooner v. City of WaterburySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1927
- Schroeder v. City of HartfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1926
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Baker v. IvesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1972
- Amelchenko v. Borough of FreeholdSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1964
- Wadlund v. City of HartfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1952
- Bazinet v. City of HartfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1949
- Annie F. Campbell v. District of Columbia, a Municipal CorporationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1957
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.