Legal Opinion

Hanlon v. City of Waterbury

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided July 16, 1928PublishedCited by 36 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, C. J.

The appeal as to the city of Waterbury has been withdrawn. The jury might reasonably have found proven these facts: The defendant Hotchkiss Company, through its agent, Miller, in charge, was operating an automobile accessory store on Brooks Street in the center of Waterbury and had a gasoline pump on its premises outside the store and within four inches of the tar sidewalk in front of these premises. The employees of this company were accustomed to help themselves to gasoline, and occasionally old customers did this with the knowledge of Miller and without objection or protest from him. One…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Ruocco v. United Advertising CorporationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1922
  2. Wright v. BlakesleeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1925
  3. Girard v. Grosvenordale Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1910
  4. City of Waterbury v. ClarkSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1917

3Cited by36 opinions

  1. Wilson v. City of New HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
  2. Higgins v. Connecticut Light & Power Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1943
  3. Stevens v. NeligonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
  4. Perkins v. WeibelSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1945
  5. Calway v. William Schaal & Son, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1931

31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API