Legal Opinion

Burdick v. United States Finishing Co.

Connecticut Superior Court

Decided July 7, 1941No. File 8045PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtQuinlan, J.

The finding and award as amended by the ruling on claimant’s motion to correct, is not, in all its particulars, a finding of facts. For instance, in the second line of the seventh paragraph, the words “it is his contention that” is not a statement of fact any more than is the statement that “the claimant failed to sustain the burden of proving that he suffered from nitrous fume poisoning arising out of and in the course of his employment”, or that “the claim of the claimant is overruled and those of the respondents are sustained.”

While it may well be that a finding of the subordinate facts as…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Glodenis v. American Brass Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1934
  2. Cormican v. McMahonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1925
  3. Rossi v. Thomas F. Jackson Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
  4. Kenyon v. Swift Service CorporationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1936

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Monument Realty v. Youmatz, No. Cv 0071092 (Feb. 18, 1997)Connecticut Superior Court · 1997
  2. Centerbank v. Purcell, No. Cv96 0071052 (Nov. 26, 1996)Connecticut Superior Court · 1996
  3. Fredericks v. Fortin, No. Cv89 0282910 (Oct. 2, 1995)Connecticut Superior Court · 1995
  4. Gillberg v. Improvator Inc., No. Cv94 0138991 (Dec. 7, 1994)Connecticut Superior Court · 1994
  5. Provident Financial Service v. Berkman, No. Cv93 0135310 S (Feb. 17, 1995)Connecticut Superior Court · 1995

1 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