Legal Opinion
Rose v. Heisler
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided July 16, 1934PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMaltbie, C. J.
The plaintiffs brought these actions to recover for injuries suffered in an antomobile collision, against Heisler, the driver of the car in which they were riding as guests, and Widman, the driver of the other car involved in the collision. The jury rendered a verdict that the plaintiffs recover against Heisler but in favor of Widman. Heisler moved that the entire verdict be set aside and from the denial of that motion has appealed. Widman has moved in this court that the appeal be dismissed as to him. The principles announced in Chapin v. Babcock, 67 Conn. 255, 256, 34 Atl. 1039; Sparrow v.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Sparrow v. BromageSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1910
- Coner v. ChittendenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1932
- Caviote v. SheaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
- Chapin v. BabcockSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1896
- Donnarumma v. KorkinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1922
3Cited by28 opinions
- Alvarez v. New Haven Register, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
- Preferred Accident Insurance v. Musante, Berman & Steinberg Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1947
- Gomeau v. ForrestSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1979
- Donner v. KearseSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- Friend v. Middle Atlantic Transp. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1946
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.