Legal Opinion

Keck v. Hinkley

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided May 2, 1939No. 3071PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWoodbury, J.

Russell C. Hinkley, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, does not contend that either of the Kecks were guilty of any negligence which caused or contributed to cause the accident. His contention is that the sole legal cause of the accident was the negligence of Clarence W. Palm. In support of his position he cites his own testimony to the effect that his car and that of Palm “sideswiped” one another in the center lane, and argues that this testimony must be regarded as true from the nature of the damage to his car and from certain testimony of Esther G. Keck which will be considered…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Sarkise v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1936

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Lavigne v. NelsonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1941
  2. London v. PerreaultSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1978
  3. Ross v. BurnhamSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1940

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API