Legal Opinion

Dibiase v. Garnsey

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided May 29, 1926PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, C. J.

Upon the former trial, the court granted a nonsuit as to the plaintiff on his action of replevin, but the record on appeal (103 Conn. 21, 130 Atl. 81) did not enable us to pass upon this ruling. On the counterclaim the court instructed the jury that § 63 of Chapter 400 of the Public Acts of 1921 was a penal statute and did not affect any contract which the parties may have entered into relating to the services and supplies furnished under the counterclaim. The question of the recovery upon the counterclaim was submitted to the jury and a verdict returned in favor of defendant and a judgment…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Loomis v. Norman Printers Supply Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1908
  2. Dibiase v. GarnseySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1925

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Bridgeport Hydraulic Co. v. PearsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1952
  2. Haag v. Beard Sand & Gravel Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1963
  3. Shelton v. Statewide Grievance CommitteeConnecticut Appellate Court · 2004
  4. Jacobs v. Connecticut Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1950
  5. Di Biase v. GarnseySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1927

3 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