Williams v. Dubin

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Williams v. Dubin

236 A.2d 86, 155 Conn. 700

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedNovember 29, 1967

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 236 A.2d 86 (Williams v. Dubin) 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

Williams v. Dubin, 236 A.2d 86, 155 Conn. 700 (Colo. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages from the defendant for personal injuries which she sustained as the result of a collision between an automobile operated by her and one operated by the defendant at the intersection of Yale Avenue and Edgewood Avenue in New Haven. The case was tried to the jury, which returned a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant has appealed to this court, assigning as errors the court’s refusal to charge in accordance with his requests to charge and the court’s finding the facts set forth in one paragraph of the finding without evidence.

We have examined the record, and we conclude that the defendant is not entitled to the requested correction of the finding. The charge of the court was adequate to present the case fairly to the jury. DeCarufel v. Colonial Trust Co., 143 Conn. 18, 20, 118 A.2d 798.

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages from the defendant for personal injuries which she sustained as the result of a collision between an automobile operated by her and one operated by the defendant at the intersection of Yale Avenue and Edgewood Avenue in New Haven. The case was tried to the jury, which returned a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant has appealed to this court, assigning as errors the court’s refusal to charge in accordance with his requests to charge and the court’s finding the facts set forth in one paragraph of the finding without evidence.

We have examined the record, and we conclude that the defendant is not entitled to the requested correction of the finding. The charge of the court was adequate to present the case fairly to the jury. DeCarufel v. Colonial Trust Co., 143 Conn. 18, 20, 118 A.2d 798.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.2d 86, 155 Conn. 700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-dubin-conn-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack