Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Daggett v. Gessaman

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 25, 1973No. 72-569PublishedCited by 163 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPotter, J.

The interrogatories which precipitated this action are framed in conclusory terms, and the answers thereto involve “legal conclusions” or “ultimate facts.” The alleged tort-feasor was asked if he was negligent, whether his negligence was the proximate cause of the accident, and whether the accident was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury. Ordinarily, the posture of these ultimate issues would be determined by the defendant’s answer to the allegations of the complaint. However, the interrogatories were apparently propounded in an effort to require the defendant to concede the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Roche v. Evaporated Milk Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
  2. Ex Parte FaheySupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  3. The Borden Company v. William Sylk and Harry S. Sylk v. Penrose Industries Corporation Sylvan Seal Milk, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1969
  4. State, ex rel. Overmeyer v. WalinskiOhio Supreme Court · 1966
  5. Greyhound Lines, Inc., a Corporation v. Delta MillerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1968

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

3Cited by163 opinions

  1. Mauzy v. Kelly Services, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1996
  2. State ex rel. Keenan v. CalabreseOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  3. State ex rel. Edwards v. Toledo City School District Board of EducationOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  4. Stegawski v. Cleveland Anesthesia Group, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1987
  5. Manofsky v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1990

158 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