Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Maskaliunas v. Western Indiana Railroad

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided December 24, 1924No. Gen. No. 28,837Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Thomson

From the testimony of the plaintiff himself, it may not be said whether, when he left the crosswalk at the 103rd street crossing and walked in a southerly direction along the east side of the defendant’s right of way, he had any definite objective. It is certain, however, that he went to the rubbish pile located on the right of way and looked for some rubber bands, after which he walked over to some bushes located a few feet east of the east line of the fight of way, where he looked over some newspaper funny pictures, and from there he returned to the right of way and crossed over the…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Newcomb v. Boston Protective DepartmentMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
  2. Lerette v. Director General of RailroadsIllinois Supreme Court · 1922
  3. Heiting v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1911
  4. Seymour v. Union Stock Yards & Transit Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1906
  5. Livak v. Chicago & Erie RailroadIllinois Supreme Court · 1921

6 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