Legal Opinion
Worth v. Dunn
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided October 6, 1922PublishedCited by 44 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtKeeler, J.
The instructions asked for as regards ordinary common-law negligence and contributory negligence, were correct, as was also the charge of the court, elaborated carefully and at length, and the defendants cannot complain of the instructions given in that regard, and no point is made in the brief challenging the same as applied to the cause of action set up in the first count of the complaint. As respects the issues raised by the pleadings on this count, the case was properly submitted to the jury.
Upon the facts claimed to be proved with which this count is concerned as summarized in the above…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Hay v. . the Cohoes CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1849
- Norwalk Gaslight Co. v. Borough of NorwalkSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1893
- Sullivan v. . DunhamNew York Court of Appeals · 1900
- Aaronson v. City of New HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1920
- Alexander v. R. A. Sherman's Sons Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1912
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by44 opinions
- Hoffman v. City of BristolSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1931
- Beckwith v. Town of StratfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1942
- Whitman Hotel Corporation v. Elliott & Watrous Engineering Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1951
- Ziman v. WhitleySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1929
- Menzie v. KalmonowitzSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1928
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.