Home/Supreme Court of Connecticut/Edgewood Construction Co. v. West Haven Redevelopment Agency

Edgewood Construction Co. v. West Haven Redevelopment Agency

365 A.2d 819, 170 Conn. 271, 1976 Conn. LEXIS 1020
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
DecidedFebruary 24, 1976
StatusPublished
Cited by35 cases

This text of 365 A.2d 819 (Edgewood Construction Co. v. West Haven Redevelopment Agency) 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
Edgewood Construction Co. v. West Haven Redevelopment Agency, 365 A.2d 819, 170 Conn. 271, 1976 Conn. LEXIS 1020 (Colo. 1976).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff brought this action seeking damages which it claimed the defendant had caused to it “as a result of its hindrance, interruption and delay” in the performance of the plaintiff’s contract to deliver to the defendant 100,000 cubic yards of fill. The count in its complaint on which this appeal is predicated alleged that the defendant disrupted and delayed the plaintiff’s *272 operations by routing the plaintiff’s vehicles over longer and more time-consuming routes and stopping the plaintiff’s vehicles on numerous occasions during periods of negotiations and discussions to determine alternate routing.

The court made two significant findings and reached two conclusions which are determinative of the merits of the plaintiff’s appeal. The findings were that the route changes were not made at the request of the defendant and that they were requested by the city of West Haven through its police department and its citizenry including one of its clergymen. The court concluded that “[i]t was due to the hue and cry of certain citizens of West Haven that alternate routes were adopted and not due to the directions of the defendant” and that “[t]he plaintiff has failed to meet its burden of proof.” On the basis of these findings and conclusions the court rendered the judgment for the defendant from which the plaintiff has appealed.

The decisive question was one of fact. The evidence printed in the appendix to the defendant’s brief amply supports the findings of the court to which we have referred and, in turn, those findings support the decisive conclusions of the court. The plaintiff’s attack upon the finding amounts to nothing more than a request that we accept its version of the facts. It is for the trier to pass upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be accorded the evidence. This court cannot retry the case. Salvatore v. Milicki, 163 Conn. 275, 278, 303 A.2d 734.

There is no error.

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

Related

Walnut Equipment Leasing Co. v. Elliott, No. Cv95-0369942s (Dec. 5, 1997)
1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 13837 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1997)
Green v. Town of East Haven, No. Cv 92-0341080 (Sep. 15, 1994)
1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 9207 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1994)
Northeast Gunite & Grouting Corp. v. Chapman
565 A.2d 256 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1989)
Ruwet-Sibley Equipment Corp. v. Stebbins
542 A.2d 1171 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1988)
Parkview Paving Co. v. City of New Haven
537 A.2d 1049 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1988)
Lees Curtain Co. v. Scinto
538 A.2d 1063 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1988)
Lynch v. Lynch
537 A.2d 503 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1988)
Nulman v. Weill
537 A.2d 495 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1988)
Ernst Steel Corp. v. Reliance Insurance
536 A.2d 969 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1988)
Spinello v. State
531 A.2d 167 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1987)
Public Works Supply Co. v. Eveready Machinery Co.
525 A.2d 988 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1987)
Russo v. Terek
508 A.2d 788 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1986)
Cashman v. Calvo
493 A.2d 891 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1985)
Pantlin & Chananie Development Corp. v. Hartford Cement & Building Supply Co.
492 A.2d 159 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1985)
Abacus Mortgage Insurance v. Whitewood Hills Development Corp.
479 A.2d 1231 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1984)
Hayes v. Town of Coventry
478 A.2d 620 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1984)
Zolan, Bernstein, Dworken & Klein v. Milone
467 A.2d 938 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1983)
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Cole
457 A.2d 656 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1983)
Krol v. Goldring
458 A.2d 15 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1982)
Mancini v. Liberty Mutual Insurance
453 A.2d 784 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
365 A.2d 819, 170 Conn. 271, 1976 Conn. LEXIS 1020, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edgewood-construction-co-v-west-haven-redevelopment-agency-conn-1976.