Legal Opinion

Armstrong v. Leverone

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided January 28, 1927PublishedCited by 40 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHinman, J.

Many of the reasons of appeal relate to attempted corrections of the findings by the excision of facts essential to the plaintiff’s cause and the substitution of statements apposite to the defendant’s contentions. Thorough perusal and analysis of the finding and draft-finding and the evidence which is before us, although the court also viewed the premises, fails to disclose that any intrinsic fact has been found without evidence or that any material fact sought to be inserted in the finding, and not already present in substance, is admitted or undisputed. Such of the claimed corrections as…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Stewart v. FinkelstoneMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1910
  2. Peck v. ConwayMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
  3. Evans v. FossMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
  4. Morrow v. HasselmanNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1905
  5. Baker v. LundeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1921

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

3Cited by40 opinions

  1. Moore v. SerafinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1972
  2. Jack v. TorrantSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1950
  3. Evans v. PollockTexas Supreme Court · 1990
  4. Town of Stamford v. VuonoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1928
  5. Johnson v. PattisonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1971

35 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