Legal Opinion

Layman v. Hall Omar Baking Co.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided January 31, 1966No. 20,164PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWickens, J.

A suit to recover damages because of personal injuries was instituted by plaintiff-appellant. At the conclusion of the plaintiff’s evidence the trial court sustained a motion for a directed verdict for defendant-appellee.

Here appellant by a motion for new trial alleges the verdict is contrary to law and that the trial court erred in instructing the jury to find for defendants.

This court is properly said to have approved the theory that the material allegations of appellant’s complaint which are essential to recovery must be supported by “substantial” evidence as differentiated from a mere…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Whitaker, Admr. v. BorntragerIndiana Supreme Court · 1954
  2. Haughton v. Aetna Life InsuranceIndiana Supreme Court · 1905
  3. Phares v. CarrIndiana Court of Appeals · 1952
  4. State v. KubiakIndiana Supreme Court · 1936
  5. Burke v. BurkeIndiana Court of Appeals · 1963

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Kroger Co. v. HaunIndiana Court of Appeals · 1978
  2. Mamula v. Ford Motor CompanyIndiana Court of Appeals · 1971
  3. Rouch v. BisigIndiana Court of Appeals · 1970
  4. Smith v. GlesingIndiana Court of Appeals · 1969
  5. Smith v. Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad CompanyIndiana Court of Appeals · 1974

8 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