Legal Opinion

Martz v. Floral Products Co.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided March 27, 1934No. 1245PublishedCited by 3 opinions

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

  1. Conner v. Citizens Street Railway Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1886
  2. Groth v. ThomannWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
  3. Maitland v. Gilbert Paper Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
  4. Davis v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1896
  5. Cleveland, Etc., Railway Co. v. MoneyhunIndiana Supreme Court · 1896

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Hite v. AndrewsOhio Court of Appeals · 1952
  2. Lincoln v. Peoples Railway Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1939
  3. Wells v. City Railway Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1938

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API