Legal Opinion

Anderson v. Nincehelser

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided November 10, 1950No. 32790PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMessmore, J.

At the conclusion of the plaintiff’s evidence the trial court sustained a motion of the deféndant to dismiss the plaintiff’s cause of action on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to make a case for the jury. We reversed the judgment and remanded the cause for new trial, holding that the plaintiff presented a prima facie case sufficient to go to the jury.

In the original opinion reported in 152 Neb. 857, 43 N. W. 2d 182, quoting from Engel v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. Co., 111 Neb. 21, 195 N. W. 523, we stated the law to be: “ ‘Where there is no eyewitness, no direct evidence of the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Eggeling v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1929
  2. Anderson v. NincehelserNebraska Supreme Court · 1950
  3. Engel v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadNebraska Supreme Court · 1923
  4. Kerwin v. Thompson, Belden & Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1923

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Omaha National Bank v. Omaha Public Power DistrictNebraska Supreme Court · 1970
  2. Bailey v. SpindlerNebraska Supreme Court · 1956
  3. Stauffer v. School District of TecumsehNebraska Supreme Court · 1991
  4. Koenig v. Frank's Plastering CompanyDistrict Court, D. Nebraska · 1964
  5. Heeney v. ChurchillNebraska Supreme Court · 1951

2 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