Legal Opinion
Perry v. M. M. Puklin Co.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided December 13, 1923PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtKeeler, J.
The grounds upon which the plaintiff seeks relief are three: first, a fraudulent and champertous agreement between Weinberg and the defendant in connection with the beginning of the action; second, untrue and deceptive representations by defendant with regard to the issues that would be raised on the trial; and third, newly-discovered evidence upon the issues which were actually litigated.
The action could probably have been maintained, upon proper facts alleged, so far as the two grounds mentioned first are concerned, in an equitable action independent of statute; but could also be brought,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Gannon v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1903
- Bridgeport Bank v. New York & New Haven RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1861
- Metropolitan Life Insurance v. FullerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1891
- Richardson v. RowlandSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1873
3Cited by12 opinions
- Dudley v. HullSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1927
- Del Webb Communities, Inc. v. PartingtonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- Kliarsky v. Eastern Greyhound Lines, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
- Rice v. FarrellSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1942
- Milestan v. TisiSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1953
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.