Legal Opinion
Callahan v. Jursek
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided March 1, 1924PublishedCited by 26 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, C. J.
The plaintiff offered to prove that he entered into a contract of purchase for, and purchased of the defendant, the sole agency for the distribution of the Comer Auto Stop Signal device for the State of Connecticut, upon the representations set forth in the complaint and made to him by the defendant; that these representations were false and fraudulent and were made for the purpose of inducing him to enter into this contract; that the plaintiff believed them to be true, and in reliance thereon entered into the contract and paid the defendant in consideration thereof $1,700, and that this…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Aaronson v. City of New HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1920
- Scholfield Gear & Pulley Co. v. ScholfieldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1898
- Gustafson v. RustemeyerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1898
- Freedman v. New York, New Haven & Hartford RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1909
- Wladyka. v. City of WaterburySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1922
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Bates v. SouthgateMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1941
- Connecticut National Bank v. VoogSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- Ubysz v. DiPietroSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1981
- Ziman v. WhitleySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1929
- Holbrook v. CasazzaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.