Legal Opinion
Quednau v. Langrish
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided December 26, 1957PublishedCited by 37 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, J.
The plaintiff had a verdict for $4000 for personal injuries resulting from the negligent operation of the defendant’s automobile. The plaintiff moved to set the verdict aside as inadequate. The court denied her motion. She has *708appealed, assigning error in the finding, in the denial of her motion, and in the charge to the jury.
A finding in a jury case is a narration of facts claimed by the parties to have been proven. Its purpose is to test the rulings of the court made during the trial. When the evidence affords a basis for the facts claimed, as it does for the portions of the finding…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Felix v. Hall-Brooke SanitariumSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1953
- Pratt, Read & Co. v. New York, New Haven & Hartford RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1925
- Slabinski v. DixSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1952
- Gorczyca v. New York, New Haven & Hartford RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1954
- Heslin v. MaloneSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- State v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1975
- Katsetos v. NolanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1976
- Birgel v. HeintzSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1972
- Reid L. Feldman, as Administrator of the Estate of Nancy Feldman, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Allegheny Airlines, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1975
- Tough v. IvesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1972
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.