Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1960

Brooks v. Singer

Supreme Court of Connecticut · Decided March 1, 1960

147 Conn. 719; 158 A.2d 745

Cases that cite this one

17 later published cases cite this decision.

Labbee v. Anderson (Conn. 1961)
Fronczek v. Della Bitta-Bassola, Inc. (Conn. 1973)
Morales v. Pentec, Inc. (Conn. App. Ct. 2000)
McKee v. Erikson (Conn. App. Ct. 1995)
Preston v. Phelps Dodge Copper Products Co. (Conn. App. Ct. 1994)
A-G Foods, Inc. v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc. (Conn. 1990)
Alfano v. Insurance Center of Torrington (Conn. 1987)
Labatt v. Grunewald (Conn. 1980)
Lee v. Lee (Conn. 1976)
Gutowski v. City of New Britain (Conn. 1973)
Corcoran v. Jacovino (Conn. 1971)
State v. Manning (Conn. 1971)
State v. McGinnis (Conn. 1969)
Akers v. Singer (Conn. 1969)
Vuono v. Eldred (Conn. 1967)
Jazlowiecki v. Nicoletti (Connecticut Superior Court 1977)
Jazlowiecki v. Nicoletti (Connecticut Superior Court 1977)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

The sole question on this appeal is whether the trial court erred in granting the motion to set aside the verdict as to certain of the plaintiffs unless they filed remittiturs. In such a case, it is the action of the trial court which is reviewed, and that action will not be reversed unless the broad legal discretion vested in the trial court was abused. *720Butler v. Steck, 146 Conn. 114, 117, 148 A.2d 246; Pischitto v. Waldron, 147 Conn. 171, 175, 158 A.2d 168. In its memorandum of decision, the trial court, after a careful review and analysis of the evidence relating to damages, concluded that the verdict was, as to certain of the plaintiffs, influenced by partiality, prejudice or mistake. This conclusion is fortified by the fact that the jury at one point brought in a verdict which was, as to three other plaintiffs, contrary to the express instructions of the charge.

The appellants failed to file an appendix to their brief pursuant to the rules. Practice Book §§447, 448; Maltbie, Conn. App. Proc., §§ 330, 331. In determining whether the trial court abused its discretion, we must make every reasonable presumption in favor of the correctness of its action. E. M. Loew’s Enterprises, Inc. v. Surabian, 146 Conn. 608, 612, 153 A.2d 463. From the evidence which has been made available to us through the defendant’s appendix, which was the only evidence before us, it appears that the court was amply justified in taking the action which it did.

There is no error.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.