Legal Opinion

Detoro v. Cannata

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided December 8, 1931PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Per curiam

The trial court has found, upon conflicting evidence and therefore conclusively, that the plaintiff, a real-estate broker, asked the defendant if a certain property he owned was for sale and if he, the plaintiff, might handle it. The defendant assented and gave him the price to be asked. The plaintiff then told the defendant that he had in mind a possible customer, naming him. The plaintiff had previously shown the customer other properties and knew he was in the market for a property similar to that of the defendant. Two or three days after his talk with the defendant the plaintiff offered…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Rosenfield v. WallSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1920
  2. French v. McKayMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1902
  3. First Congregational Society v. City of BridgeportSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1923
  4. Fisher v. HansonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1923
  5. Dreisback v. RollinsSupreme Court of Kansas · 1888

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Metz v. Hvass Construction Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1957
  2. Richter v. DrenckhahnSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1960
  3. Neville v. YaknunasSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1946
  4. Pentin v. GonsowskiSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1951
  5. Ranney v. RockSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1949

3 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