Legal Opinion

Schulte, Inc. v. Hewitt Grocery Co.

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided June 30, 1924PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Per curiam

In setting aside a verdict, the trial judge is acting in the exercise of a legal discretion, and his action will not be disturbed by us unless it clearly appears that the discretion was abused; and in passing upon the question of abuse, great weight should be given to his opinion, and every assumption made in favor of its correctness. Robinson v. Backes, 91 Conn. 457, 460, 99 Atl. 1057; Roma v. Thames River Specialties Co., 90 Conn. 18, 96 Atl. 169.

A careful examination of the evidence presented on the trial discloses that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling in substance…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Roma v. Thames River Specialties Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1915
  2. Robinson v. BackesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1917

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. DeLahunta v. City of WaterburySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1948
  2. Canfield v. SheketoffSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1926
  3. Amellin v. LeoneSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1932
  4. Schroeder v. City of HartfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1926
  5. Maroncelli v. StarkweatherSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1926

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API