Ward v. Cumberland County Power & Light Co.
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
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
- Field v. WebberSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1933
- Cullinan v. TetraultSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1923
- Mills v. RichardsonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1927
- Seavey v. LaughlinSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1904
- Mahan v. HinesSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1921
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Miller v. SzelenyiSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1988
- Colvin v. BarrettSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1955
- Bernstein v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1943
- Bechard v. LakeSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1940
- Daigle v. PelletierSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1943
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.