Legal Opinion

Fox v. Fafnir Bearing Co.

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided January 6, 1928PublishedCited by 47 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBanks, J.

The assignments of error for refusal to correct the finding do not call for extended consideration. In so far as the defendants’ motion stated material and operative facts, they were inserted by the commissioner. His legal conclusions, which were also inserted, had no proper place in the finding, and cannot affect our decision. The paragraph as to an advertising asset, claimed to have been found without evidence, was, on the contrary, supported by the testimony of the foreman of the defendant employer. The last paragraph of the finding, to which the defendants object, is not a statement of an…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Powers v. Hotel Bond Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1915
  2. Palumbo v. George A. Fuller Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1923
  3. Packett v. Moretown Creamery Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1917
  4. Holmen Creamery Ass'n v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1918
  5. O'Boyle v. Parker-Young Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1921

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by47 opinions

  1. Horrell v. Gulf & Valley Cotton Oil Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1930
  2. Marchbanks v. Duke Power Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1939
  3. Bogoratt v. Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1932
  4. Kasowitz v. Mutual Construction Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1967
  5. Dixon v. General Grocery CompanySupreme Court of Missouri · 1956

42 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