Legal Opinion

Lovejoy v. City of Norwalk

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided November 7, 1930PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHinman, J.

In the foregoing statement of facts regarded as essential to the discussion and result and in further mention of facts in the course of this opinion, we have embodied such requested corrections of the finding, as to such facts, as we find to be warranted. Such other facts as relate to conditions at and near the sewage outlets are of no controlling importance in the present inquiry, which relates, essentially^ to conditions at and over the plaintiff’s oyster grounds, distant two miles or more from such outlets. The basis of the action is the allegation that the defendant has permitted sewage…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Illinois Central Railroad v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  2. Missouri v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
  3. Haskell v. City of New BedfordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
  4. Coxe v. . StateNew York Court of Appeals · 1895
  5. G. S. Nicholas & Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1919

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Colberg, Inc. v. State of California Ex Rel. Dept. Pub. Wks.California Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest v. HassellCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1992
  3. People v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
  4. Stamford Dock & Realty Corp. v. City of StamfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1938
  5. Wernberg v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1973

8 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