Baltimore City Passenger Railway Co. Kemp
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Motion for Re-argument. The case will he found reported supra, page 74.
1Opinion of the CourtAlvey, C. J.
There has been a motion made in this case for re-argument, based largely upon authorities that were not brought to the attention of the Court on the former hearing; and hence we depart from the general practice of disposing of such motions without the formal assignment of reasons for the action of the Court thereon.
Upon the question, whether the jury should have been allowed to infer, upon the evidence before them, that cancer was the result of the injury received by the plaintiff, the defendant cites and relies upon the case of Jewell vs. Grand Trunk Railway Co., 55 N. H., 84, a case not…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Stokes v. SaltonstallSupreme Court of the United States · 1839
- Stockton v. FreyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1846
- Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. BlocherCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1867
- President of Baltimore v. BooneCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1876
3Cited by19 opinions
- Wallace v. LudwigMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
- Mentzer v. Western Union Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1895
- State ex rel. Abell v. Western Maryland RailroadCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1885
- Vernon Eugene Bracewell v. Nicholson Air Services, Inc., a Maryland Corporation D/B/A Cumberland Air Lines and Cumberland Air Lines, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1984
- McNeill v. Railroad Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1904
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.