Martz v. Floral Products Co.
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
*119OPINION
By HORNBECK, PJ.
Insofar as pertinent to our inquiry the jury, by way of answer to interrogatories, made the following findings of fact as a part of its. special verdict; that the place where the accident occurred was not in the business district of the city; that the plaintiff immediately prior to the time of the collision was riding the bicycle from the south in a- northerly direction out of an alley intersecting East Fifth Street between Irwin and Harbine Streets, across East Fifth Street; that there was no other traffic on East Fifth Street between Irwin and Harbine Streets; that…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Conner v. Citizens Street Railway Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1886
- Groth v. ThomannWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
- Maitland v. Gilbert Paper Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
- Davis v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1896
- Cleveland, Etc., Railway Co. v. MoneyhunIndiana Supreme Court · 1896
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Hite v. AndrewsOhio Court of Appeals · 1952
- Lincoln v. Peoples Railway Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1939
- Wells v. City Railway Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1938