Legal Opinion
King v. Haynes
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided February 5, 1932PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMaltbie, C. J.
The jury first returned a verdict for the plaintiff to recover $1000. Thereupon the trial court stated to them that it was unable to accept the verdict. It then repeated the portion of the charge which dealt with damages and instructed them that in returning them for further consideration it did not say their verdict should be changed in any specific particular; that they might return a verdict for the plaintiff or one for the defendants; that its reasons for returning them were that it was very sure they had misunderstood the charge as to damages; that, to repeat, they might bring in a…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Lentine v. McAvoySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1927
- Horton v. MacDonaldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1926
- Black v. GriggsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1902
- Magoohan v. CurranSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1899
- Shulman v. StockSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1915
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Intelisano v. GreenwellSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1967
- Ryan v. ScanlonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
- Barbieri v. PandiscioSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1932
- Ferris v. Hotel Pick Arms, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1959
- Hedberg v. CooleySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1932