Legal Opinion
Smith Ex Rel. Smith v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad
Supreme Court of Iowa
Decided April 2, 1940No. 45079PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
This case comes before us on the pleadings. A demurrer having been sustained to the petition. Plaintiff has appealed.
The pertinent part of the petition is as follows:
“5. That said highway number 80 runs due north and south in the vicinity of said crossing; that the defendant’s track crosses said highway in a northwesterly and southeasterly direction; that defendant’s car was headed in a northwesterly direction; that when the defendant’s motor car was close to the highway or upon any part of said highway the beam of its headlight was directed away from plaintiff as she approached said…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Continental Improvement Co. v. SteadSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Dolan v. BremnerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1935
- Dombrenos v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1919
- Kuehl v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1905
- Carrigan v. Minneapolis & St. Louis RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1915
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Smith v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1940
- Smith v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1941