Legal Opinion

Davies v. Marshall

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided April 30, 1932No. 2177PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtHornbeck, J.

Five grounds of error are set forth in the brief of defendant under the following captions:

I. The court erred in introducing grounds for recovery not proven or alleged and in charging thereon.

II. The court erred in charging that a violation of §§6310-17 and 6310-18, GC was negligence per se.

III. The court erred in charging contributory negligence.

IV. The court erred in charging that violation of §13603, GC, was negligence perse.

V. The court erred in charging on "commercial cars.”

We will consider the grounds set up in the order presented and discuss such of the facts appearing in the record as…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State v. BlairOhio Court of Appeals · 1927
  2. Cleveland Railway Co. v. KuncicOhio Court of Appeals · 1927

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Springfield v. HanlonOhio Court of Appeals · 1939

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

Powered by the Exa API