Legal Opinion

Wells v. Active Automobile Exchange, Inc.

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided July 27, 1923PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBeach, J.

We note that the appealing defendant, in complying with the rule requiring the appellant to specify what reasons of appeal will be pursued on the brief and in argument here, caused all his reasons of appeal to be reprinted in extenso. This is entirely unnecessary. The proper practice is to identify the reasons of appeal which will be pursued by their numbers, and to specify only such numbers as the appellant intends to pursue. We also note that the appellant has made no attempt to pursue all of his reasons of appeal. The twenty-two exceptions to the finding are expressly abandoned on the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Semple v. MorgansternSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1922
  2. Barker v. S. A. Lewis Storage & Transfer Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1906

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Automobile Insurance v. Model Family Laundries, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1947
  2. Ferris v. Hotel Pick Arms, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1959
  3. Marron v. BohannanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1926
  4. B. A. Ballou & Co. v. CitytrustSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
  5. Nothnagle v. New York, New Haven & Hartford RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1952

6 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