Legal Opinion

Ford v. Hankins

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided April 5, 1923No. 6 Div. 752PublishedCited by 33 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSayre, J.

Argument is directed in the first place to defendant’s (appellant’s) contention that the verdict and judgment were rendered against the great weight of the evidence, and that, for this reason, the motion for a new trial should have been granted. Plaintiff was injured in'person and in property by a collision between the automobile he was driving and a truck alleged .to be the property of defendant and operated in his service at the time of the collision. Plaintiff’s evidence to fasten liability on defendant was found in the fact that the' license tag on the truck at the time of the accident,…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Cobb v. MaloneSupreme Court of Alabama · 1890
  2. Watts v. Montgomery Traction Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1912
  3. Dowdell v. BeasleySupreme Court of Alabama · 1920
  4. Penticost v. MasseySupreme Court of Alabama · 1917
  5. Massey v. PentecostSupreme Court of Alabama · 1921

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. Tullis v. BlueSupreme Court of Alabama · 1927
  2. Cruse-Crawford Mfg. Co. v. RuckerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
  3. Toranto v. HattawaySupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
  4. Holmes v. Lilygren Motor Co. Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1937
  5. Sexton v. LaumanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1953

28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API