Catania v. Brown
Connecticut Appellate Court
1Opinion of the CourtJacobs, J.
We are justified in assuming from the finding that the defendant is engaged in the retail paint business. In June, 1964, the plaintiff Michael Catania asked the defendant to recommend a paint to cover the exterior stucco walls of the plaintiffs’ house. The defendant was told that the stucco was in a “chalky” and “powdery” condition. He recommended and sold to Catania a product known as Pierce’s shingle and shake paint. At the time of the sale, the defendant advised Catania to “wire-*345brush” any loose particles which were “flaky” or “scaly” before applying the paint; the defendant also told…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Ireland v. Louis K. Liggett Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1922
- Crotty v. Shartenberg's-New Haven, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1960
- Kirk v. Stineway Drug Store Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1963
- Corneliuson v. Arthur Drug Stores, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1965
- Green Mountain Mushroom Co. v. BrownSupreme Court of Vermont · 1953
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Richards v. Goerg Boat & Motors, Inc.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1979
- The Singer Company, a Corporation v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1978
- Blockhead, Inc. v. Plastic Forming Company, Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1975
- Garner v. S & S Livestock Dealers, Inc.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1971
- Omega Engineering, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1998
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.