Bilenkise v. Ferruccio

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Bilenkise v. Ferruccio

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

DecidedNovember 1, 1922

StatusPublished

This text of 118 A. 925 (Bilenkise v. Ferruccio) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 A. 925, 98 Conn. 830, 1922 Conn. LEXIS 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bilenkise-v-ferruccio-conn-1922.