Legal Opinion

Maxwell Motor Corp. v. Winter

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 16, 1928No. 20694PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDay, J.

The first proposition advanced by the plaintiff in error is that the plaintiff’s petition did not state a cause of action; that the demurrer thereto should have been sustained; and that judgment should have been rendered for the motor company notwithstanding the verdict.

The claim of Winter is based upon the right to bring suit for damages due to the alleged violation of a lawful requirement, as provided for in Section 1465-76, General Code. The Legislature, by the Act of April 20,1921 (109 Ohio Laws, 181), Section 1465-68a et seq., General Code, made provision for compensation for injuries…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Smith v. RhodesOhio Supreme Court · 1903

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Gibbons v. Baltimore & Ohio Rd.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1952
  2. Kenton Savings Bk & Trust Co. v. SmickOhio Court of Appeals · 1930
  3. State, Ex Rel. Lourin v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1941

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API