Section 47a-8
- Citation
- Section 47a-8
- Parent Document
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 35 Conn. App. 126 (1994)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 1994-07-12
Other Sections in This Document (34)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 35 Conn. App. 126 (1994)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 35 Conn. App. 126 (1994)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 35 Conn. App. 126 (1994)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 35 Conn. App. 126 (1994)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 35 Conn. App. 126 (1994)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 35 Conn. App. 126 (1994)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 35 Conn. App. 126 (1994)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 35 Conn. App. 126 (1994)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 35 Conn. App. 126 (1994)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 35 Conn. App. 126 (1994)
- Section 47a-8
- Section 47a-8
- Section 47a-8
- Section 47a-8
- Section 47a-8
- Section 47a-8
- Section 47a-8
- Section 47a-8
- Section 47a-8
- Section 47a-8
- Section 47a-8
- Section 47a-8
- Section 47a-8
- Section 47a-8
- Section 47a-8
- Section 47a-8
- Section 47a-8
- Section 47a-8
- Section 47a-8
- Section 47a-8
- Section 47a-8
- Section 47a-8
- Section 47a-8
- Section 47a-8
Full Text
891 chars“ ‘[I]f the evidence presented is in conflict and more than one conclusion is reasonably open to the jury . . . and if the jury may reasonably draw different inferences from the evidence, or if the jury could be called to pass upon the credibility of witnesses or their testimony, a verdict should not be directed by the court.’ Johnson v. Flammia, 169 Conn. 491, 496, 363 A.2d 1048 (1975).” Marron & Sipe Building & Contracting Corp. v. Flor, 22 Conn. App. 689, 699, 580 A.2d 508 (1990). This case was vigorously contested at the trial court and involved the presentation of numerous witnesses and conflicting evidence with regard to the violation of the relevant statutes, proximate causation and damages. We conclude, on the basis of the evidence presented, that the jury reasonably could have arrived at more than one verdict, and, as a result, the verdict should not have been directed.