Legal Opinion

Taylor v. City of Cincinnati

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 14, 1944No. 29732PublishedCited by 162 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.

The contention of the plaintiff is that the trial court in submitting the case to the jury erred in its charge relating to nuisance. The defendant claims, however, that since another issue was made by it to the effect that plaintiff’s injury was due to the sole negligence of the driver of the car in which plaintiff was riding at the time she was injured, and that since the court charged correctly on this issue, error in the charge on the issue of nuisance, even if conceded, did not warrant a reversal of the judgment, because of the two-issue rule as announced in the case of Sites v.…

2Cases cited65 opinions

  1. Andrew J. Aikens v. State of WisconsinSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
  2. McFarlane v. City of Niagara FallsNew York Court of Appeals · 1928
  3. Schell v. DuBoisOhio Supreme Court · 1916
  4. Cohen v. . Mayor, Etc., of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
  5. Clifford v. . DamNew York Court of Appeals · 1880

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

3Cited by162 opinions

  1. Brown v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Commrs.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1993
  2. Crosstex North Texas Pipeline, L.P., N/K/A Enlink North Texas Pipeline, Lp v. Andrew Gardiner and Shannon GardinerTexas Supreme Court · 2016
  3. Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Kessel v. LeavittWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Ruwe v. Board of Township TrusteesOhio Supreme Court · 1987

157 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