Supreme Court of Connecticut· 12/18/1956
Vilcinskas v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
Citations
- 144 Conn. 170
- 127 A.2d 814
- 1956 Conn. LEXIS 260
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- allowing statute of limitations defense to be raised by motion to strike because parties agreed that complaint set forth all facts necessary to determine whether statute of limitations defense applied
- continuing course of conduct inapplicable where act completed by sale of air rifle
- continuing course of conduct inapplicable where act completed by sale of air rifle
- interpreting General Statutes [1949 Rev.] § 8324, predecessor to § 52-584
- allowing the statute of limitations defense to be raised by a motion to strike because the parties agreed that the complaint set forth all the facts necessary to determine whether the statute of limitations defense applied
- interpreting General Statutes [1949 Rev.] 8324, predecessor to § 52-584
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Iítglis, Inglis, Baldwin, O'Sullivan, Wynne, Daly
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
48 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Sanzone v. Board of Police CommissionersSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1991-06-11· cited 365×
- Catz v. RubensteinSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1986-08-12· cited 354×
- Bartha v. Waterbury House Wrecking Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1983-05-03· cited 350×
- Daily v. New Britain Machine Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1986-07-22· cited 284×
- Sherwood v. Danbury HospitalSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2000-02-29· cited 258×
- Forbes v. BallaroConnecticut Appellate Court· 1993-05-04· cited 202×
- Zapata v. BurnsSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1988-05-17· cited 195×
- Giglio v. Connecticut Light & Power Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1980-04-15· cited 178×
- Ecker v. Town of West HartfordSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1987-09-08· cited 161×
- Blanchette v. BarrettSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1994-03-23· cited 153×
- Handler v. Remington Arms Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1957-03-26· cited 110×
- Sanborn v. GreenwaldConnecticut Appellate Court· 1995-09-12· cited 103×
- Prokolkin v. General Motors CorporationSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1976-03-02· cited 90×
- Watts v. ChittendenSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2011-07-19· cited 83×
- Girard v. WeissConnecticut Appellate Court· 1996-10-01· cited 80×
- Joseph J. Ricciuti v. Voltarc Tubes, Inc.Second Circuit· 1960-04-01· cited 68×
- McDonald v. Haynes Medical Laboratory, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1984-02-28· cited 51×
- Kelemen v. Rimrock Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1988-05-24· cited 51×
- Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. CoopermanSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-11-04· cited 50×
- Baxter v. Sturm, Ruger & Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1994-07-26· cited 50×
Cites
2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.