O'Hagan v. . Dillon
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Superior Court, of the city of Hew York, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a verdict. The nature of the action and the facts are set forth sufficiently in the opinion. Any illegal evidence tending to excite the passions, arouse the prejudices, awaken the sympathies, or warp or influence the judgment of the jurors, cannot be considered harmless.
Read the full summary
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Superior Court, of the city of Hew York, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a verdict. The nature of the action and the facts are set forth sufficiently in the opinion. Any illegal evidence tending to excite the passions, arouse the prejudices, awaken the sympathies, or warp or influence the judgment of the jurors, cannot be considered harmless. (Anderson v. R., W. and O. R. R. Co., 54 N. Y., 341; Hawley v. Hatter, 9 Hun, 134; Williams v. Fitch, 18 N. Y., 546; Baird v. Gillett, 47 id., 186.) If proper evidence was excluded,…
1Per curiam
This was an action to recover damages for injuries occasioned by the plaintiff’s falling into an excavation at Sixty-second street,-on Fourth avenue, made in sinking the tracks of the Harlem railroad. The defendants Avcrc contractors, and it is alleged Avere negligent in not putting up and maintaining proper barriers and lights for protection and Avarning to persons desiring to cross the street. The principal question litigated Avas one of fact, Avhether suitable barriers had been erected, and whether the defendants Avere guilty of negligence in respect thereto. Upon this question there Avas…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Sesler v. Coal Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1902
- Neudecker v. . KohlbergNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Rodgers v. BaileyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1910
- Stanley v. StanleyIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
- Stewart v. AndersonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1900
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.