Mik v. City of Meriden
Supreme Court of Connecticut
1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, C. J.
The appeal is from the sustaining of the demurrer for the reason that the complaint alleges that no written notice of the injury, and the nature and cause thereof, and the time and place of its occurrence, was given by the plaintiff to the defendant until May 2d, 1926, and the injury plaintiff is alleged to have suffered occurred on Jánuary 19th, 1926. General Statutes, § 1414, prescribes that before an action can be brought against a city for injuries suffered from a defective highway, written notice of the injury shall be given within sixty days thereafter. The giving of this notice is…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Crocker v. City of HartfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1895
- Forbes v. Town of SuffieldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1908
- Bilotta v. Media, Middleton, Aston & Chester Electric Railway Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
3Cited by5 opinions
- Murray v. City of MilfordCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1967
- Murray v. City Of MilfordCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1967
- Treitz v. City of LouisvilleCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1943
- Andrews v. City of BristolSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1935
- Florence E. Young v. City of StamfordConnecticut Superior Court · 1948