General

City of Danbury v. John B. Falvo et al.

139 Conn. 387·Connecticut Supreme Court·1953·CT

Brief incoming

Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.

Opinion

City of Danbury v. John B. Falvo et al. Brown, C. J., Jennings, Baldwin, Inglis and O’Sullivan, Js. Argued December 4, 1952 decided January 13, 1953 T. Clark Hull, for the appellants (defendants). Boceo E. LaCava, with whom, on the brief, was Abram W. Sipro, for the appellee (plaintiff). [MAJORITY — Baldwin, J.] Baldwin, J. The facts in this ease are similar to these in Danbury v. Corbett, decided this day, and the identical legal question is presented. The decision in that case impels a like decision in this one. There is error, the judgment is set aside and the case is remanded with direction to render judgment for the defendants. In this opinion Jennings and O’Sullivan Js., concurred; Brown, C. J., and Inglis, J., dissented.