Legal Opinion

Cleveland Ry. Co. v. Halliday

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 15, 1933No. 24037PublishedCited by 44 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.

The one question presented by the record in this case is whether the court of common pleas committed reversible error in refusing the demand of the plaintiff below for trial to a jury of twelve. The court of common pleas held that the plaintiff below had waived such a jury and had consented to trial by a jury of six, pursuant to a general rule duly adopted by the court of common pleas of Cuyahoga county. This rule, which was based upon “the desire of the judges to cooperate in every reasonable manner in reducing the expense of operation” of the court of common pleas of Cuyahoga county, reads…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Foster-Wyman Lumber Co. v. Superior CourtWashington Supreme Court · 1928
  2. Kolkman v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1931
  3. Martin v. . Windsor Hotel Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1877
  4. Harry Goldberg Co. v. EmermanOhio Supreme Court · 1932

3Cited by44 opinions

  1. Zoppo v. Homestead InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Arbino v. Johnson & JohnsonOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  3. Sorrell v. ThevenirOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Kneisley v. Lattimer-Stevens Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1988
  5. Cassidy v. GlossipOhio Supreme Court · 1967

39 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