O'Hara v. Hewlitt Construction Co.

2 Citing cases

  1. McGrath v. Crane Co.

    175 A. 572 (Conn. 1934)   Cited 7 times

    Gonirenki v. American Steel Wire Co., supra, p. 7. The same is true as to the action of a compensation commissioner upon a motion to open his award. Morisi v. Ansonia Mfg. Co., 108 Conn. 31, 142 A. 393; Wysocki v. Bradley Hubbard Co., 113 Conn. 170, 179, 154 A. 431; O'Hara v. Hewlitt Construction Co., 113 Conn. 262, 266, 155 A. 229. Where it is sought to open the judgment of a court or the award of a commissioner upon the ground of newly discovered evidence, certain limitations are imposed upon the exercise of the power. The evidence must be newly discovered, and not have been discoverable before the trial by the use of due diligence. It must not be merely cumulative, and it must appear that the new evidence would probably be sufficient to change the result.

  2. Whalen v. New Haven Pulp and Board Co.

    8 Conn. Supp. 313 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1940)

    QUINLAN, J. The question presented by this appeal is a reviewable one in the Superior Court. O'Hara vs. Hewlitt Construction Co., 113 Conn. 262. It is also a simple one to understand. The deceased left a wife and a mother, both members of his household.