Legal Opinion

Cash v. City of Cincinnati

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 10, 1981No. 80-929PublishedCited by 75 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, J.

1 — 1

In the Court of Appeals, the defendants predicated their assignments of error on the argument that the defect in the crosswalk, as alleged by plaintiff, was only a minor imperfection and, as such, was not actionable as a matter of law by plaintiff. In support of that argument, defendants cited prior Ohio case law, emphasizing Kimball v. Cincinnati (1953), 160 Ohio St. 370, and other cases following, such as O’Brien v. Toledo (1957), 167 Ohio St. 35; Gallagher v. Toledo (1959), 168 Ohio St. 508; Buckley v. Portsmouth (1959), 168 Ohio St. 513; Amos v. Cleveland Heights (1959), 169 Ohio St.…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Hamden Lodge No. 517 v. Ohio Fuel Gas Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1934
  2. Grossnickle v. Village of GermantownOhio Supreme Court · 1965
  3. Loughran v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1948
  4. Smith v. United Properties, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1965
  5. Helms v. James Dickey Post No. 23, American Legion, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1966

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

3Cited by75 opinions

  1. Texler v. D.O. Summers Cleaners & Shirt Laundry Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Jenkins v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2013
  3. Carnes v. SiferdOhio Court of Appeals · 2011
  4. Chadwick v. Barba Lou, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1982
  5. Backus v. Giant Eagle, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1996

70 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