Legal Opinion

Parro v. Meagher

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided May 5, 1936PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSlack, J.

The action is tort to recover for personal injuries and damage to plaintiff’s motor cycle caused by a collision between it and defendant’s automobile. The plaintiff had a verdict and judgment below and the case is here on defendant’s exceptions.

One exception was to the refusal of the court to direct a verdict for defendant at the close of the evidence on the ground that it failed to show negligence on his part and did show contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. Our disposition of this exception makes consideration of other exceptions saved unnecessary.

The collision occurred…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Higgins, Admr. v. MetzgerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1928
  2. Steele v. FullerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1932
  3. McCulley v. AndersonNebraska Supreme Court · 1929
  4. Aiken v. MetcalfSupreme Court of Vermont · 1916
  5. Williamson v. ClarkSupreme Court of Vermont · 1931

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Duchaine, B.N.F. v. RaySupreme Court of Vermont · 1939
  2. Farrell v. GreeneSupreme Court of Vermont · 1938
  3. Verchereau v. JamesonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1961
  4. Peno, B.N.F. v. BusheySupreme Court of Vermont · 1939
  5. Cummings v. WhitneyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1953

2 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