Legal Opinion
Endut v. Borodenko
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided March 5, 1929PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
John Rufus «Booth, J.
The appellant (defendant) has made no effort to correct the finding but seeks to have reviewed the conclusions which the trial court drew from the subordinate facts found.
The qüéstion presented by the appeal is whether the conclusions of the trial court, either specifically set forth in the finding or necessarily involved in the judgment rendered and forming its essential basis, can legally or logically be drawn from the subordinate facts.
In his amended complaint, which contains two counts, the plaintiff alleged, in substance, that on or about October 5th, 1926, he and…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Neff v. NeffSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1921
- Davis v. MargolisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1928
- Graham v. Southington Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1923
- City of Hartford v. Connecticut Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1928
- Hayden v. AllynSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1887
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Lake Garda Improvement Assn. v. BattistoniSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1967
- Farkas v. HalliwellSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1950
- Haller Testing Laboratories, Inc. v. A. Lurie, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1962
- Haller Testing Laboratories, Inc. v. A. Lurie, Inc.Connecticut Superior Court · 1962
- C & S Distributors of New Haven, Inc. v. SimonConnecticut Appellate Court · 1967
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.