Legal Opinion

Orentlicherman v. Matarese

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided June 1, 1923PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBurpee, J.

The appellant claims that the finding of facts made by the trial court should be corrected by striking out certain facts which he asserts were found “without sufficient evidence,” and by substituting or adding certain facts set out in the draft-finding which he declares were “reasonably sustained by the weight and sufficiency of the evidence.” It would seem to be unnecessary to repeat that this court will not disturb a finding for such reasons. Hine v. McNerney, 97 Conn. 308, 311, 116 Atl. 610; DeFeo v. Hindinger, 98 Conn. 578, 581, 120 Atl. 314. The finding must stand as it was made.

The…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Defeo v. HindingerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1923
  2. Foote v. BrownSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1905
  3. Hine v. McNerneySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1922
  4. Larkin v. AverySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1854
  5. Parker v. HotchkissSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1856

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Daddona v. Liberty Mobile Home Sales, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
  2. Loewenberg v. WallaceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1960
  3. Freeman v. Alamo Management Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
  4. Fleming v. City of BridgeportSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
  5. Berlingo v. Sterling Ocean House, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1987

14 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