Legal Opinion
Bernardo v. Hoffman
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided April 30, 1929PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHaines, J.
Upon the presentation of the evidence, the trial court granted a motion to direct a verdict and judgment was entered for the defendants. Upon the denial of her motion to set aside the verdict, the plaintiff appealed. The court granted the motion for a directed verdict upon two grounds, viz: that the plaintiff’s decedent was a trespasser upon the defendants’ property, and that the evidence did not establish the liability of the defendants for negligence.
This action of the court was justified if upon the evidence the jury could not reasonably and legally have reached any other conclusion than…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Sedita v. SteinbergSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1926
- Church v. MeekerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1867
- Ulrich v. New York, New Haven & Hartford RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1923
- Hayes v. New York, New Haven & Hartford RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1917
- Fitch v. New York, Providence & Boston RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1890
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Robinson v. Southern New England Telephone Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1953
- Bader v. United Orthodox SynagogueSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1961
- McPheters v. LoomisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1939
- Lurier v. Danbury Bus CorporationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1957
- Zanoni v. HudonConnecticut Appellate Court · 1996
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.