Goldstein v. Sklar
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
1Opinion of the Court
DUFRESNE, Justice.
On appeal, in the case of the husband plaintiff, from the denial of defendant’s motions for a directed verdict, for judgment n. o. v. and for new trial.
Defendant contends that the jury verdict and judgment thereon should be set aside and judgment entered for the defendant, on the ground that there is not sufficient evidence from which the jury could find that the plaintiff was in the exercise of due care.at the time of the automobile accident wherein he sustained his injuries.
Should her request for judgment be denied, defendant further seeks a new trial for the usual reasons…
2Cases cited62 opinions
- Rosen v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
- Ginsberg v. Burroughs Adding Machine Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1918
- Sluder v. St. Louis Transit Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1905
- Omberg v. United States Mutual Accident Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1897
- Roosa v. Boston Loan Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882
57 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Michaud v. SteckinoSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1978
- Ginn v. Penobscot CompanySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1975
- Warren v. Waterville Urban Renewal AuthoritySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1967
- State v. HowardSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1979
- State v. TraskSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1966
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.