Legal Opinion
Davanza v. City of Bridgeport
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided January 5, 1934PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHinman, J.
The sole question presented by the appeal is whether the relevant facts set forth in the finding, which is not attacked, support the conclusion reached by the trial court that the defect causing injury to the plaintiff had existed for a sufficient length of time to charge the defendant city with constructive notice of its existence and afford reasonable opportunity to remedy it. It is apparent from the language of this conclusion that in arriving at it the court had in mind and applied our test of law that “in order to charge a municipality with implied or presumptive notice of a defect, it…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Carl v. City of New HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1919
- Ritter v. City of SheltonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1927
- Schroeder v. City of HartfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1926
- Frohlich v. City of New HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1932
- Kristiansen v. City of DanburySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1928
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Nicholson v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
- Witek v. Town of SouthburySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1945
- 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
- DeCrosta v. City of New HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1935
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.