Legal Opinion

Meeks v. Graysonia, Nashville & Ashdown Railroad

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided May 25, 1925PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HaRt, J.,

(after stating the facts). Counsel for the plaintiff ask for a reversal of the judgment because the court erred in giving instruction No. 5 to the jury at the request of the defendant. The instruction reads as follows: “The court instructs the jury that the law requires railroad companies to furnish toilets for its patrons, and that the plaintiff is charged with knowledge of that fact, and that, if plaintiff - neglected or failed to ask the agent of the defendant for a key or location of the toilet, and, by reason of her failure or neglect to get this information from the agent of…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Pittsburg Reduction Co. v. HortonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1908
  2. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. EllenwoodSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
  3. Bona v. Thomas Auto Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1919
  4. Pasley v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
  5. Rodgers v. Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf RailroadSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Riddell v. LittleSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1972
  2. Walton v. Sherwin-Williams Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1951
  3. Mays v. Ritchie Grocer CompanySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928
  4. Booth & Flynn v. PriceSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1931
  5. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company v. AdamsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1939

13 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