Legal Opinion

Capobinco v. Samorak

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided April 5, 1925PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKeeler, J.

The trial judge in setting aside the order for a new bond, evidently construed § 5891 as being permissive and discretionary in that the word “may” rather than “shall” is used in conferring the jurisdiction upon the court. It is familiar law that it is often necessary to construe the word “may” as equivalent to “shall” in a statute in order to effectuate the legislative intent, which must in all cases govern. In a way each statute must be construed by itself in connection with the apparent legislative intent regarding the right or remedy which is created. There are, however, some general rules…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Supervisors v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1867
  2. People Ex Rel. Otsego County Bank v. Board of Supervisors of Otsego CountyNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
  3. Mason v. FearsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1850
  4. Brokaw v. Commissioners of HighwaysIllinois Supreme Court · 1889
  5. People Ex Rel. Conway v. Board of SupervisorsNew York Court of Appeals · 1877

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Foote v. BartholomewSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1925
  2. Karp v. Urban Redevelopment CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1972
  3. Teresa T. v. RagagliaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2005
  4. Shulman v. Zoning Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1967
  5. People's Holding Co. v. BraySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1934

9 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