Legal Opinion
Lindblade v. United States Rubber Co.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided April 5, 1925PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMaltbie, J.
The plaintiff’s original complaint was held to be insufficient on demurrer; it was replaced by a substituted complaint in two counts, which was also held to be insufficient on demurrer; a third count was thereafter added by amendment, and likewise demurred to and held insufficient. The original complaint, having been replaced by another, has now no place in the case except as a matter of its history, but it does afford a convenient method of approach to the issues before us. Briefly summed up, its allegations were that the defendant The United States Rubber Company owned, and the defendant…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Bartram v. Town of SharonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1899
- Reardon v. ShimelmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1925
- Pomponio v. New York, New Haven & Hartford RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1895
- Crogan v. SchieleSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1885
- Lavigne v. City of New HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1903
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Sedita v. SteinbergSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1926
- Hurlburt v. ShermanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
- Tenney v. Pleasant Realty CorporationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1949
- Sawicki v. Connecticut Railway & Lighting Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1943
- DeCapua v. City of New HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1940
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.