Legal Opinion
Kraus v. Newton
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided June 7, 1988No. 5143PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDupont, C. J.
The plaintiff appeals from the judgment rendered by the trial court upon the jury’s verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff claims that the trial court erred (1) in refusing to mark for identification a written statement made by the defendant, (2) in its jury charge regarding the duty owed the plaintiff by the defendant, and (3) in its jury charge on contributory negligence. We find no error.
The jury could reasonably have found certain relevant facts. On the morning of January 4, 1982, the plaintiff, a meter reader employed by Northeast Utilities, went to premises owned by the defendant to…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Reardon v. ShimelmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1925
- State v. OnofrioSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1979
- Carpenter v. CarpenterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
- Isaacson v. Husson CollegeSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1972
- Goodman v. Corn Exchange National Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- John's Heating Service v. LambAlaska Supreme Court · 2002
- Kraus v. NewtonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
- Filippelli v. Saint Mary's HospitalConnecticut Appellate Court · 2013
- Shea v. DohertyConnecticut Appellate Court · 2005
- Dorn v. Manzi, No. Cv93 0132099 S (Apr. 20, 1995)Connecticut Superior Court · 1995
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.