Legal Opinion
Carchidi v. Rodenhiser
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided January 3, 1989No. 13433PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtShea, J.
The dispositive issue in this case is whether, during closing argument, counsel may state to the jury his belief as to the pecuniary value of the plaintiff’s personal injury claim. We conclude that counsel may not, because this practice improperly influences the jury in *527arriving at a verdict. Accordingly, the judgment for the plaintiff in this personal injury case is set aside and the case is remanded to the trial court for a new trial.
The plaintiff, Sheryl Carchidi, brought this negligence action against the defendant, Doris M. Rodenhiser, executrix of the estate of Walter Parkins, for…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Botta v. BrunnerSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1958
- Braddock v. Seaboard Air Line Railroad CompanySupreme Court of Florida · 1955
- Friedman v. C & S CAR SERVICESupreme Court of New Jersey · 1987
- Haight v. HoytSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1883
- Levin v. RitsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1979
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Bartholomew v. SchweizerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- Pool v. BellSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
- Wood v. City of BridgeportSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
- Vajda v. TuslaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
- Bleau v. WardSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.