Legal Opinion
Pitt v. Kent
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided March 16, 1962PublishedCited by 26 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, C. J.
The plaintiff, a real estate broker, sued to recover one-half of a commission paid to the defendant George Meany, another real estate broker, by the named defendant for procuring the sale of real estate. By stipulation, the action was withdrawn as to the named defendant. Hereinafter the defendant Meany will be referred to as the defendant. He has appealed, from a judgment rendered for the plaintiff.
The defendant seeks additions to the finding. The facts which he wants incorporated are not admitted or undisputed and for the most part consist of inferences which the trial court was not required…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Plumb v. CurtisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1895
- Rosenfield v. WallSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1920
- Murphy v. LinskeySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1920
- Jenkins v. ReichertSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1939
- Metz v. Hvass Construction Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1957
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- State v. PrioleauSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- Collens v. New Canaan Water Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1967
- Saphir v. NeustadtSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1979
- Bridgeport Pipe Engineering Co. v. DeMatteo Construction Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1970
- Turgeon v. TurgeonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.