Legal Opinion

Palombizio v. Murphy

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided April 28, 1959PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMellitz, J.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for injuries he sustained while riding as a passenger in an automobile operated by the defendant Seremet when it came into collision with an automobile operated by the defendant Murphy. Murphy suffered a default and judgment was rendered against both defendants. Seremet appealed. Assignments of error directed to the subordinate facts found by the trial court are not discussed in Seremet’s brief and are treated as abandoned. Maltbie, Conn. App. Proc. § 327. The dispute between the parties concerns the conclusions drawn by the trial court…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Farrell v. Waterbury Horse R. R. Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1891
  2. Duffee v. MansfieldSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1891
  3. Automotive Twins, Inc. v. KleinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1951
  4. Ferino v. PalmerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1947
  5. Collins v. City National Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1944

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

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Lawrence v. KozlowskiSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1976
  2. State v. JohnSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
  3. Sestito v. City of GrotonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1979
  4. Pfau v. Trent Aluminum Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1970
  5. State v. SaiaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1976

18 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