Legal Opinion

Siegfried v. Everhart

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided November 23, 1936No. 2752PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

By WASHBURN, J.

In the trial court the parties appeared in reverse order. They will be referred to herein as they appeared in that court.

Plaintiff, Lue M. Everhart, sued Charles Siegfried and Anna Siegfried to recover damages for an injury suffered by plaintiff in being bitten by a dog harbored by defendants. Trial resulted in a judgment in favor of plaintiff.

There is very little dispute in the evidence as to the controlling facts.

One of the defendants went to call upon the plaintiff, and said defendant’s dog accompanied him; and while plaintiff was either trying to hold her own dog to…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Bevin v. GriffithsOhio Court of Appeals · 1932
  2. Kingsley v. YocomOhio Court of Appeals · 1929

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Vandercar v. DavidDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1957
  2. McCallie v. New York Central Rd. Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1969
  3. Glinsey v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1973

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

Powered by the Exa API