Legal Opinion

Chicago, B. & Q. R. v. Hogan

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided November 5, 1890PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Rehearing of case reported 27 Neb., 801. For contentions of counsel, see former report.

1Opinion of the CourtNorval, J.

This case was reversed on a former hearing and a rehearing granted. We have again considered the questions involved and found no reason to change the views expressed in the former opinion prepared by Judge Maxwell, that, under the agreed statement .of facts, the railroad company was not required to fence its right of way at the point where the plaintiff’s horse was killed, and, as the animal was killed without the fault or negligence of the company’s employes, the defendant was not liable for the loss. The greater portion of the defendant’s depot and station grounds at the city of Lincoln are…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Flint & Pere Marquette Railway Co. v. LullMichigan Supreme Court · 1874
  2. Lafayette & Indianapolis Railroad v. ShrinerIndiana Supreme Court · 1855
  3. Lloyd v. Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
  4. Davis v. Burlington & Missouri River R. R.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1869
  5. Chicago & Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. CampbellMichigan Supreme Court · 1882

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. SevcekNebraska Supreme Court · 1904
  2. Burnham v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1909
  3. Burnham v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1909
  4. Burnham v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1909
  5. Ferrell v. Oregon Short Line R. R. Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1927

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