Legal Opinion

Doroszka v. Lavine

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided June 13, 1930No. (NO. 29682), (NO. 30329)PublishedCited by 34 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHinman, J.

The trial court, on motion, set each verdict aside. Error in so doing is the only assignment on these appeals. It suffices to say, without recital of details thereof, that the evidence, although consisting only of the testimony of the plaintiff, was ample to warrant a verdict in his favor in each case. It is manifest, however, that both verdicts were grossly excessive in the amount of damages awarded, and the trial court was correct in setting them aside on that ground. Few verdicts approaching such amounts have been rendered, in this jurisdiction, in actions of tort, however grievous and…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Maisenbacker v. Society ConcordiaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1899
  2. McGann v. AllenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1926
  3. Hanna v. SweeneySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1906
  4. Hassett v. CarrollSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1911
  5. Baldwin v. PorterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1838

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

3Cited by34 opinions

  1. Champagne v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
  2. Gaudio v. Griffin Health Services Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
  3. Collens v. New Canaan Water Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1967
  4. Waterbury Petroleum Products, Inc. v. Canaan Oil & Fuel Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1984
  5. Vogel v. SylvesterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1961

29 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