Legal Opinion

Sohn v. Cambern

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1886No. 12,453PublishedCited by 33 opinions

From the Rush Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the CourtElliott, J.

The appellant’s contention is that a complaint by a citizen to recover for’ an injury accruing from the unlawful obstruction of a highway must show a special injury, or the action can not be maintained. We have no doubt that the position of counsel is well assumed. Waltman v. Rund, 94 Ind. 225; McCowan v. Whitesides, 31 Ind. 235; Angell Highways, section 285. But in this case the assertion of the rule stated does not determine the controversy, for a further question remains, and that is, whether the appellant can now successfully avail himself of the objection urged against the complaint.…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railway Co. v. AdamsIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
  2. City of Indianapolis v. KingsburyIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
  3. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railroad v. SpencerIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
  4. Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. BalchIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
  5. McCowan v. WhitesidesIndiana Supreme Court · 1869

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

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. Perkins v. HaywardIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
  2. Indiana, Bloomington & Western Railway Co. v. EberleIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
  3. Dantzer v. Indianapolis Union Railway Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1894
  4. New v. WalkerIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
  5. Baker v. PyattIndiana Supreme Court · 1886

28 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