Legal Opinion
Jarrett v. Jarrett
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided November 5, 1963PublishedCited by 26 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtShea, J.
The plaintiff obtained a decree of divorce on the ground of intolerable cruelty. The defendant has made what in effect is a wholesale attack on the finding of the trial court. We have repeatedly pointed out that attacks of this nature rarely produce any beneficial results. Krupa v. Farmington River Power Co., 147 Conn. 153, 157, 157 A.2d 914. Facts can be added to the finding only when they are admitted or undisputed. A fact is not admitted or undisputed merely because it has not been contradicted. The question of credibility is one for the trier. Shakro v. Haddad, 149 Conn. 160, 162, 177…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Brown v. Connecticut Light & Power Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1958
- Shakro v. HaddadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1961
- Krupa v. Farmington River Power Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1959
- Vitale v. GargiuloSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1957
- Babcock v. BabcockSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Cecio Bros., Inc. v. FeldmannSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1971
- State v. GrimesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1966
- Hess v. Dumouchel Paper Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1966
- Cohen v. Holloways', Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1969
- Morrone v. JoseSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1965
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.