Legal Opinion

Toledo Term. Rd. Co. v. Hughes

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 28, 1926No. 19841PublishedCited by 41 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDay, J.

The amended petition filed herein recites :

“Plaintiff further says that for some time prior to November 15, 1923, the defendant maintained, at the intersection of said tracks and the Chicago pike, a target or signal consisting of an automatic bell and swinging electric light, which bell and electric light sounded and swung when the defendant’s tracks were occupied by locomotives or cars, but that on the 15th day of November, 1923, said target or signal was defective and not in operation, although unknown to plaintiff and though required to be in good working order by the Public Utilities…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Lauson v. Town of Fond du LacWisconsin Supreme Court · 1909
  2. Detroit, Toledo & Ironton Rd. Co. v. RohrsOhio Supreme Court · 1926
  3. Philadelphia & Reading Railroad v. DillonSupreme Court of Delaware · 1921
  4. Jacobs v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1916
  5. Spencer v. TaylorMichigan Supreme Court · 1922

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

3Cited by41 opinions

  1. Weston v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
  2. Patton v. Pennsylvania Rd. Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1939
  3. Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. HussIndiana Court of Appeals · 1932
  4. Pennsylvania Rd. Co. v. RusynikOhio Supreme Court · 1927
  5. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. GillespieIndiana Court of Appeals · 1930

36 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