Legal Opinion

E. Paul Kovacs & Co. v. Blumgarten

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided July 27, 1962PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtShea, J.

The plaintiff sued to recover the reasonable value of services rendered in excavating an area of the defendant’s land in connection with the ■construction of a swimming pool. The court rendered judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant has appealed, claiming that the court erred in refusing to find certain facts which were admitted or -undisputed, in finding facts without evidence, in reaching conclusions when the subordinate facts do not support them and in overruling certain claims ■of law.

The finding, with certain additions to which the •defendant is entitled, recites the following…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Sears v. CurtisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1960
  2. Cole v. MyersSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1941
  3. Vitale v. GargiuloSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1957
  4. Fitzsimmons v. International Assn. of MacHinistsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1939
  5. Stern & Co. v. International Harvester Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1958

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Sonnichsen v. StreeterConnecticut Appellate Court · 1967
  2. Huckabee v. StevensConnecticut Superior Court · 1975
  3. Carlone v. VerniConnecticut Appellate Court · 1965
  4. Catania v. Data Switch Corporation, No. Cv89 02 88 59s (Jan. 4, 1991)Connecticut Superior Court · 1991
  5. E. Paul Kovacs & Co. v. BlumgartenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1962

5 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