Legal Opinion
Kowinko v. Salecky
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided August 8, 1969No. File No. CV 14-635-4602PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the CourtDearington, J.
In his amended complaint the plaintiff alleged that he was a tenant of the defendants and the defendants had permitted a defective storm sash and a defective storm window to remain on the demised premises which they knew of, or in *659the exercise of a reasonable inspection -would have discovered, and that they failed to take precautionary measures to save the plaintiff from harm or to notify the plaintiff of the danger and had further, at the time of the letting, represented that the equipment furnished the plaintiff was in proper working condition when in fact it was not. Aside from the tenancy…
2Cases cited44 opinions
- Rossignol v. Danbury School of Aeronautics, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1967
- Reardon v. ShimelmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1925
- Dean v. HershowitzSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1935
- Panaroni v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1969
- Console v. NickouSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1968
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Prodigy Services Co. v. South Broad Associates, Devcon Enterprises, Cenvest, Inc., and Fosdick CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995