Legal Opinion
Haines v. Bero Engineering Construction Corp.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided July 1, 1930PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCrouch, J.
The actions arise out of a collision between an automobile owned by the Highway Products and Manufacturing Company and a truck owned by the defendant Deglique. The automobile was being driven with the owner’s consent by one Lane. The truck was being driven by a general employee of its owner and was being used in the business of the defendant Bero Engineering *333Construction Corporation. The plaintiff Emma C. Haines was a passenger in the automobile. The plaintiff Robert C. Haines is the husband of Emma C. Haines.
The defendant Bero Corporation made a motion in each action under section 193,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Sherlock v. ManwarenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1924
- Greenhouse v. Rochester Taxicab Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1926
- Hailfinger v. MeyerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1925
- Bozzuffi v. DarrieusecqAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1925
- Jerome v. New York Railways Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1920
3Cited by21 opinions
- Fox v. Western New York Motor Lines, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1931
- Brown v. CranstonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1942
- Fox v. Western New York Motor Lines, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1931
- Baidach v. TogutNew York Court of Appeals · 1959
- Ackerson v. KiblerNew York Supreme Court · 1931
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.