Legal Opinion

Hintz v. Michigan Central Railroad

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided February 17, 1903No. Docket No. 22PublishedCited by 30 opinions

Error .to Saginaw; Snow, J. Case by Anna Hintz against the Michigan Central Railroad Company for personal injuries. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtCarpenter, J.

Plaintiff obtained a verdict and judgment in the court below for damages resulting from the alleged negligence of defendant. Defendant seeks a reversal of that judgment on three grounds: First, that there was no evidence from which the jury could find that the defendant was negligent; second, that the evidence conclusively established plaintiff’s negligence; third, that the trial judge improperly denied defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict on the ground that the same was against the weight and preponderance of the testimony.

The testimony introduced on the part of the plaintiff tended…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Detroit Tug & Wrecking Co. v. GartnerMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Whipple v. Michigan Central RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1902
  3. Brassel v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1894
  4. Baldwin v. Grand Trunk Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1901
  5. Cole v. Detroit Electric RailwayMichigan Supreme Court · 1903

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

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. Gardiner v. CourtrightMichigan Supreme Court · 1911
  2. In Re MathersMichigan Supreme Court · 1963
  3. Corcoran v. City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court · 1940
  4. Ewing v. LamphereMichigan Supreme Court · 1910
  5. Dupuis v. Saginaw Valley Traction Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1906

25 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