Legal Opinion

Hughes v. Hanselman

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided March 6, 1933No. 4238PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HAMILTON, PJ.

The specifications of error are: That the verdict is against the weight of the evi dence; the admission of a certain written statement Of Hughes, made about twen¡tyone days after the accident; and, error in the charge of the court.

We will first consider the question of the admission of the written statement, since this evidence, if properly admitted, would weigh heavily against the plaintiff in the consideration of the case by the jury. The/ statement was reduced to writing and was signed by Hughes some twenty-one days after the accident. The substance of the written statement…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Union Gas & Electric Co. v. CrouchOhio Supreme Court · 1930
  2. Degroodt v. SkrbinaOhio Supreme Court · 1924

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Hatter v. McMunnOhio Court of Appeals · 1935
  2. Raile v. ClayOhio Court of Appeals · 1933

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

Powered by the Exa API