Legal Opinion

Ward v. Cumberland County Power & Light Co.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided October 5, 1936PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSturgis, J.

In this action of negligence, the trial Judge at nisi prius ordered the jury to return a verdict for the defendant, and exceptions were reserved.

As is well settled in this jurisdiction, a motion by the defendant for a directed verdict is equivalent to a demurrer to the evidence. *432Exceptions raise the question, not whether there is sufficient evidence to take the case to the jury, but whether upon all the evidence as it appears in the record a verdict for the plaintiff could be permitted to stand. Dyer v. Power & Light Company, 119 Me., 224, 110 A., 357. See also Mills v. Richardson, 126 Me.,…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Field v. WebberSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1933
  2. Cullinan v. TetraultSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1923
  3. Mills v. RichardsonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1927
  4. Seavey v. LaughlinSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1904
  5. Mahan v. HinesSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1921

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Miller v. SzelenyiSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1988
  2. Colvin v. BarrettSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1955
  3. Bernstein v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1943
  4. Bechard v. LakeSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1940
  5. Daigle v. PelletierSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1943

1 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