Legal Opinion
Midvale Coal Co. v. Cardox Corp.
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided December 28, 1949No. 31718PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtStewart, J.
The Court of Common Pleas in its opinion stated:
“It would therefore follow that the plaintiff’s petition states a cause of action unless:
“ (a) Recovery is prohibited by lawi, or
“(b) The damages claimed are too remote and too indirect to be recoverable.”
That court then stated, in effect, that the law does not prohibit a recovery, but the court sustained the demurrer upon the ground that the damages claimed are too remote and too indirect to be recoverable. However, in this court, defendant not only insists that the claimed damages are too remote for recovery hut that recovery is barred by…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Swift v. TysonSupreme Court of the United States · 1842
- Williamson Heater. Co. v. RadichOhio Supreme Court · 1934
- Baltimore & Ohio Rd. Co. v. BaillieOhio Supreme Court · 1925
- Dayton Power & Light Co. v. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1923
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- People Express Airlines, Inc. v. Consolidated Rail Corp.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1985
- Cincinnati Bell Telephone Co. v. StraleyOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- Ledex, Inc. v. Heatbath Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1984
- Iron Workers Local Union No. 17 Insurance Fund v. Philip Morris Inc.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1998
- Terex Corp. v. Grim Welding Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1989
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.