Legal Opinion

State v. Diegle

Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, Civil Division

Decided June 28, 1911PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKinkead, J.

On motion to direct verdict for defendant.

I will state at some length the conclusions of the court on the motion, which is submitted by counsel for the defendant, to take -this case from the jury.

I might just announce my conclusions, but. I always have the feeling that litigants are entitled to know the reasons for conclusions reached by the court, and especially when the matter means so much to parties; and when a court gives its reasons and if they appeal to any -one as cogent, or at least if they give evidence of careful, conscientious consideration, the parties are better satisfied when…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Grimm v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
  2. Price v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
  3. Scott v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
  4. Brown v. McCormickMichigan Supreme Court · 1873
  5. United States v. WightU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Michigan · 1889

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Newman v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1928
  2. State v. DoughertySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1915

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

Powered by the Exa API