Legal Opinion
Cooke v. Drigant
New York Court of Appeals
Decided December 3, 1942PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFinch, J.
Tins is an action to recover damages for injuries sustained by reason of the negligence of the individual defendant, Drigant. Drigant, a collection agent of the respondent insurance company, was driving his own car from his assigned collection area at One Hundred and Forty-second street, New York city, to the company’s office at One Hundred and Seventy-fourth street, when he ran down and injured the infant-plaintiff at the corner of Amsterdam avenue and One Hundred and Fifty-eighth street on the afternoon of September 18, 1937. His negligence is not disputed upon this appeal.
The…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Matter of Electrolux CorporationNew York Court of Appeals · 1942
- Burdo v. Metropolitan Life Insurance CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1938
- Kanigher v. Schwerin Air Conditioning CorporationNew York Court of Appeals · 1939
3Cited by22 opinions
- Fountain v. KarimCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2016
- Lundberg v. State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1969
- Cooner v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1960
- Dilworth v. GoldbergDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2012
- Rausman v. BaughAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.