Legal Opinion
Harvey Realty Co. v. Borough of Wallingford
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided April 17, 1930PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHinman, J.
The only correction of the finding which is pursued on appeal seeks the insertion of facts tending to show nonuser of the original pumping station for the actual taking of water between 1908 and 1924. The evidence as to this was conflicting, the trial court expressed belief in the testimony to the contrary which we must accept in view of this conflict, and even were the facts found as requested they would not work an abandonment of rights previously acquired. Richardson v. Tumbridge, 111 Conn. 90, 149 Atl. 241; Schroeder v. Taylor, 104 Conn. 596, 605, 134 Atl. 63.
All of the other reasons of…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Strobel v. . Kerr Salt Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1900
- People v. HulbertMichigan Supreme Court · 1902
- State v. MorseSupreme Court of Vermont · 1911
- Schroeder v. TaylorSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1926
- Wadsworth v. TillotsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1843
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Mystic Marinelife Aquarium, Inc. v. GillSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1978
- Collens v. New Canaan Water Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1967
- City of Waterbury v. Town of WashingtonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2002
- State v. HellerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1937
- City of West Frankfort v. FullopIllinois Supreme Court · 1955
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.