Legal Opinion

Blunt v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. Co.

District Court, N.D. Illinois

Decided May 17, 1929No. 285Published

1Opinion of the Court

WOODWARD, District Judge.

At the close of the evidence for the plaintiff, a motion for a directed verdict is made on behalf of the defendant.

In passing upon this motion, the court is controlled by the rule announced in Union Pacific Railway Co. v. McDonald, 152 U. S. 262, 283, 14 S. Ct. 619, 627 (38 L. Ed. 434), as follows:

“The Court may withdraw a case from the jury altogether, and ‘direct a verdict for the plaintiff or the defendant, as the one or the other may be proper, where the evidence is undisputed, or is of such conclusive character that the court, in the exercise of a sound judicial…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. GoodmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
  2. Union Pacific Railway Co. v. McDonaldSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
  3. Southern Pacific Co. v. BerkshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
  4. Greenwald v. B. O. R. R. Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1928
  5. Flannelly v. Delaware & Hudson Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1912

3 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