Legal Opinion

Neville v. Yaknunas

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided March 6, 1946PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDickenson, J.

The controlling issue presented is whether the trial court was justified in its conclusion that the plaintiff, a real estate broker, was not the procuring cause in the sale of the property of the defendant Mrs. Esther Hurowitz to the defendants Charles and Ignas Yaknunas.

With few exceptions, the changes in the finding claimed by the plaintiff find support in her testimony alone. The trial court, of course, could disbelieve this. The facts, with such corrections as the plaintiff is entitled to, may be briefly summarized as follows: The plaintiff, a real estate broker, at the request of the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Rosenfield v. WallSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1920
  2. Murphy v. LinskeySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1920
  3. Craney v. DonovanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1917
  4. Fisher v. HansonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1923
  5. Roche v. CurtinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1944

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Clark v. HaggardSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1954
  2. State v. CoulombeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1956
  3. Armstrong v. WatrousSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1951
  4. Corvo v. City of WaterburySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1954
  5. Marshall v. Sturgess & Jockmus, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1962

4 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