Legal Opinion
Hamden Lodge No. 517 v. Ohio Fuel Gas Co.
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided February 7, 1934No. 24385PublishedCited by 189 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBevis, J.
Two of the judges of the Court of Appeals were of the opinion that there was sufficient evidence of the defendant’s ownership or control of the service pipe to carry the case to the. jury if “the so-called scintilla rule” still prevails in Ohio, but not sufficient to carry it to the jury if this rule does not prevail. The third member of the court held that there was more than a “mere scintilla” of evidence upon this point, and he dissented from the entering of final judgment for the defendant.
He stated that he based his dissent upon ‘ ‘ evidence that the gas company installed the service…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Pennsylvania Railroad v. ChamberlainSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Washington Gas Light Co. v. District of ColumbiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Ewing v. GoodeU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio · 1897
- Commissioners of Marion County v. ClarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Painesville Utopia Theatre Co. v. LautermilchOhio Supreme Court · 1928
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by189 opinions
- GTE Automatic Electric, Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1976
- Ruta v. Breckenridge-Remy Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1982
- J.C. Penny Co. v. RobinsonOhio Supreme Court · 1934
- State v. SwigerOhio Supreme Court · 1966
- Dolores M. Moran, of the Estate of Edward P. Moran, Deceased v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1982
184 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.