Legal Opinion
Shiembob v. Ringling
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided May 10, 1932PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtAyery, J.
After the trial, a verdict having been returned in favor of the plaintiff, the defendants moved to set it aside, and for arrest of judgment, and for judgment non obstante veredicto', and assigned error in the refusal of the court to grant these motions, and also in its refusal to charge in accordance with certain requests, in the charge as delivered, in certain rulings upon evidence, and also claimed the verdict was excessive.
From the evidence, the jury might reasonably have found the following facts: July 5th, 1929, the defendants, as partners, were engaged in the operation of a circus, and…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Ritchie v. WallerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1893
- Son v. Hartford Ice Cream Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1925
- Loomis v. HollisterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1903
- New Haven Water Co. v. RussellSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1912
- Turner v. American District Telegraph & Messenger Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1920
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- McPheters v. LoomisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1939
- Thibodeau v. Connecticut Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1952
- Kakluskas v. Somers Motor Lines, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1947
- Marvin Eichelberg v. National Railroad Passenger CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995
- Lane v. HatfieldOregon Supreme Court · 1943
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.