Dernberger v. Baltimore & O. R.
District Court, N.D. West Virginia
At Law. Action by Martha Dernberger, administratrix, against the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company. A verdict was directed for defendant, and plaintiff moves for new trial.
1Opinion of the Court
DAYTON, District Judge.
Upon the trial of this case, I felt, under the law, in duty bound to sustain the defendant’s motion and direct a verdict for it. Motion has been made to set aside this verdict and grant plaintiff a new trial, and it is this motion I am now to pass upon. As matter of introduction it seems proper to review, to a limited extent, the authorities enunciating the rule governing federal courts in determining when a verdict should be directed by the court and when the matter should be submitted to the jury. Such review is constantly necessary, because the great number of these…
2Cases cited54 opinions
- Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. IvesSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Improvement Company v. MunsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Patton v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1901
- Merchants' Bank v. State BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Railroad Company v. HoustonSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
49 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Hamden Lodge No. 517 v. Ohio Fuel Gas Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1934
- Kilmer v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1930
- Wideman v. Hines, D.G.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1921