Legal Opinion
Nuzzo v. Connecticut Steel Co.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided May 31, 1960PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMurphy, J.
The plaintiffs have appealed from the denial of their motions to set aside a directed verdiet for the defendant and for a new trial. The motion for a new trial is superfluous and will be disregarded. The issue for determination is whether the trial court abused its discretion in the action it took upon the motion to set aside the verdict. Mihaley v. Edwards, 145 Conn. 727, 728, 141 A.2d 243.
The named plaintiff, hereinafter called the plaintiff, claimed to have been injured on April 15, 1955, when the steel framework of a building in Hamden on which he was installing a roof collapsed. He was…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Ardoline v. KeeganSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1954
- Lurier v. Danbury Bus CorporationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1957
- Mann v. Leake & Nelson Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1945
- Lewis v. I. M. Shapiro Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1945
- Mihaley v. EdwardsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1958
3Cited by8 opinions
- Wright v. Coe & Anderson, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1968
- Lombardi v. J. A. Bergren Dairy Farms, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1965
- Santor v. BalnisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1964
- MacIejewska v. Lombard Bros., Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1976
- Engengro v. New Haven Gas Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1965
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.