Bilenkise v. Ferruccio

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Bilenkise v. Ferruccio

118 A. 925, 98 Conn. 830, 1922 Conn. LEXIS 41

Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided November 1, 1922·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant claims that the subordinate facts found by the trial court do not support its ultimate conclusion that the plaintiff at the time of the accident was in the exercise of due care. In our opinion this conclusion was not only amply justified by the subordinate facts, but was the only conclusion which could have been reasonably drawn from them.

There is no error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The defendant claims that the subordinate facts found by the trial court do not support its ultimate conclusion that the plaintiff at the time of the accident was in the exercise of due care. In our opinion this conclusion was not only amply justified by the subordinate facts, but was the only conclusion which could have been reasonably drawn from them.

There is no error.

Bilenkise v. Ferruccio, 118 A. 925, 98 Conn. 830, 1922 Conn. LEXIS 41 (Colo. 1922).

Pincite

118 A. 925 (Bilenkise v. Ferruccio) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.