Glazer v. Rosoff
Supreme Court of Connecticut
1Per curiam
The testimony of the plaintiff, if accepted, was clearly sufficient to sustain the verdict, but the trial court held that it was so improbable and obviously untruthful as to justify setting the verdict aside. In some of its details, there can be little doubt that it was colored by self-interest; in certain respects it is contradicted by other evidence of compelling force; and the plaintiff claimed to have forgotten circumstances which it is hard to believe she might not have readily called to mind. Yet making allowances for all these elements,' we cannot say that her testimony upon the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Richard v. New York, New Haven & Hartford RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1926
- Canfield v. SheketoffSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1926
- Falleo v. Byrolly Transportation Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1929
- Philips v. WinchesterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1923
3Cited by3 opinions
- Frisbie v. SchintoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1935
- Lucas v. South Norwalk Trust Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1936
- Waters v. Connecticut Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1931