Legal Opinion

Cornett v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided November 7, 1935No. 667PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

- OPINION

By HAMILTON, J.

We gather from a statement in the record that the motion was granted on the theory *365that the plaintiff had failed to prove his case. The motion, as stated by the trial court, was as follows:

“Defendant made a motion asking the court to direct a verdict in favor of the defendant on the grounds the plaintiff did not show cause whereby the plaintiff should not be allowed compensation.”

We, therefore, take the view that what was intended by the motion for a directed verdict was that the proof was not sufficient to take the case to the jury.

Plaintiff testified that he had been…

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. Parletto v. Indust. Comm.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1941
  2. Davis v. the American Rolling Mills Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1936
  3. Kemna v. Industrial Commission, Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County1938

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

Powered by the Exa API