Legal Opinion
Marciel v. Berman
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided February 5, 1926PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Curtís, J.
If the finding is not corrected, it could not reasonably be claimed that the judgment could be attacked because of the conclusions of the court as to negligence or contributory negligence.
The defendants excepted to paragraph twenty-seven of the finding and to the refusal of the court to find paragraphs 27 and 27a of its motion to correct the finding. In their reasons of appeal nineteen, twenty and twenty-one, they allege as a ground of error this action of the trial court. But neither in the motion to correct, nor in the exceptions to the finding, nor in the reasons of appeal, do…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Dexter Yarn Co. v. American Fabrics Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1925
- Perrotti v. BennettSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1920
- Brown v. New Haven Taxicab Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1917
- Kaufman v. Hegeman Transfer & Lighterage Terminal, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1923
- Defeo v. HindingerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1923
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Hope v. CavalloSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1972
- Matter of BossonDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1977
- Siller v. PhilipSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1928
- Terzano v. ClementeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
- Connecticut Bank & Trust Co. v. SchindelmanDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1977
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.