Legal Opinion

R an W Hat Shop, Inc. v. Sculley

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided August 4, 1922PublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, C. J.

We shall take up first the corrections of the finding which appellant seeks to have made. There are ninety-seven of these, of which only á few are specifically pursued in the brief. Their disposal did not require the printing of the entire evidence. It was an abuse of our practice to have caused this evidence to have been made a part of the record. Counsel for the appellant use this evidence not only in relation to the errors as to the finding, but also in support of their grounds of argument. This latter use is wholly contrary to our practice and is essentially unfair. No litigant was ever…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
  2. Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. MitchellSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
  3. Angle v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1894
  4. Walker v. CroninMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
  5. Bitterman v. Louisville & Nashville RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1907

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

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. Sorenson v. Chevrolet Motor Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
  2. Skene v. CarayanisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1926
  3. Mitchell v. AldrichSupreme Court of Vermont · 1960
  4. Wellington Systems, Inc. v. Redding Group, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1998
  5. Harry A. Finman & Son, Inc. v. Connecticut Truck & Trailer Service Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1975

26 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