Hangen v. Hadfield
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtWeygandt, C. J.
In the Court of Common Pleas the defendant’s motion for new trial was based upon sixteen grounds. In this court the assignments of error have been reduced to four in number. All of them have been discussed in the opinions of the lower courts', and a careful study of the record discloses no prejudicial error whatsoever in spite of the trial court’s statement that “I don’t know of a negligence case that I have tried that really involved more complications and more difficulty in getting over to the jury a charge that would aid them in resolving their verdict.” Although the capacity of the trial…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Kormos v. Cleveland Retail Credit Men's Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1936
- Skinner v. Pennsylvania Rd. Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1933
- Gumley, Admr. v. CowmanOhio Supreme Court · 1934
- Higbee Co. v. LindemannOhio Supreme Court · 1936
3Cited by21 opinions
- Smiley v. Arrow Spring Bed Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1941
- Spalding v. WaxlerOhio Supreme Court · 1965
- Garbe v. HalloranOhio Supreme Court · 1948
- Glasco v. MendelmanOhio Supreme Court · 1944
- Palm Beach County Bd. of Com'rs v. SalasSupreme Court of Florida · 1987
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.