General
Edna V. Cavanaugh vs. The Connecticut Company
110 Conn. 698·Connecticut Supreme Court·1930·CT
Wheeler, C. J., Maltbie, Haines, Hinman and Banks, Js.
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
Edna V. Cavanaugh vs. The Connecticut Company.
Third Judicial District, Bridgeport,
October Term, 1929.
Wheeler, C. J., Maltbie, Haines, Hinman and Banks, Js.
Argued October 31st, 1929
decided March 3d, 1930.
Israel J. Cohn, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Seth W. Baldwin, for the appellee (defendant).
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
We cannot hold upon the evidence under the rule announced in Rosenthal v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 88 Conn. 65, 89 Atl. 888, as amplified, explained and followed in Belledeau v. Connecticut Co., ante, p. 625, 149 Atl. 127, that the trial court erred in setting-aside the verdict.’
'There is no error.