Legal Opinion
Burkle v. Superflow Manufacturing Co.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided February 2, 1951PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtComley, J.
The finding, which is not subject to *490any material correction, discloses these facts: On or about February 1, 1946, the named defendant, hereinafter called the defendant, operated a machine shop in which it manufactured a line of plumbing supplies such as elbows, T’s, bushings, lock nuts and couplings. It machined these parts from castings which it obtained from various foundries. In addition to these items, it also handled, but did not manufacture, other plumbing supplies such as float rods and lifts which it bought ready-made from others.
The plaintiffs were copartners doing business under…
2Cases cited35 opinions
- Warner v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Cohen v. Bartgis Bros.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1942
- Blake v. . VoigtNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Cohen v. Bartgis Brothers CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1943
- Yale Co-Operative Corporation v. RoginSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1947
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Finley v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
- Glazer v. Dress Barn, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2005
- Bernard J. Lee, Platiff-Appellant v. Jenkins Brothers, Bernard J. Lee v. Farnham YardleyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1959
- Finley v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1985
- Haveg Corporation v. GuyerSupreme Court of Delaware · 1965
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.