Legal Opinion
Hancock v. Finch
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided December 6, 1939PublishedCited by 38 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJennings, J.
The plaintiff was bitten by dogs owned by the defendants and secured a verdict. The defendants appeal from the denial of their motion to set aside the verdict and from the judgment, claiming error in the charge.
The complaint was in the usual form. The defendants filed a special defense to the effect that the plain tiff was the keeper of the dogs at the time the injuries were suffered. The plaintiff denied this special defense. The issue thus raised was not submitted to the jury. The assignments of error on the two appeals are set up in various ways but all questions are included in this one…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- National Safe Deposit Co. v. SteadSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Gibson v. St. Paul Fire & Marine InsuranceWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1936
- McCarthy v. DaunisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
- Lanna v. KonenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1935
3Cited by38 opinions
- State v. LabatoSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1951
- Falby v. ZarembskiSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- Heyen v. WillisAppellate Court of Illinois · 1968
- Trager v. ThorMichigan Supreme Court · 1994
- Manuel Mercado v. The U.S. Customs Service, the Commissioner of Customs, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Attorney General of the United States, the Internal Revenue Service and the United States of America, United States of America, Third-Party-Plaintiff-Appellee v. United States Currency in the Amount of $181,590.00 (One Hundred Eighty One Thousand, Five Hundred and Ninety Dollars, More or Less, Third-Party-Defendant. And Appeal of Manuel Mercado, Claimant-Appellant. Appeal of Zane and RudofskyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1989
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.