Legal Opinion
Murphy v. Dantowitz
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided April 18, 1955PublishedCited by 31 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, J.
The plaintiff brought this action against three defendants to recover damages for personal injuries. Two of the defendants, Pearl Dantowitz and Morris B. Rettner, were described in the complaint as owners in possession and control of a tenement house in Stamford. The third defendant is The 170 Lawn Corporation, which at the time the action was brought was the holder of the record title to the premises. It will be referred to herein as the corporation.
The writ, summons and complaint are dated February 15, 1954. The complaint is in two counts. The first count alleges that the plaintiff was…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Goldblatt v. FerrignoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1951
- Gest v. GestSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
- Humphrey v. GerardSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1910
- Hurlbutt v. HathewaySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1952
- Ryan v. EbeckeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1925
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- Standard Tallow Corp. v. JowdySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- Carpenter v. Planning & Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1979
- Cohen v. CohenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- Pappas v. PappasSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1973
- Gary Excavating, Inc. v. Town of North HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1972
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.