Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Hancock
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1DissentHumphreys, J.
The testimony of the witnesses introduced by appellees as well as those introduced by appellant are set out rather fully in the majority opinion in this case, so it is unnecessary to again set out the testimony in this dissenting opinion. The testimony is conflicting on the issue of liability of appellant and also upon the issue of whether appellees were guilty of contributory negligence equal to or g'reater than that of appellant. The ’cause was submitted to the jury under correct instructions upon both issues with the result that each appellee obtained a reasonable amount for the damages he…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Baldwin v. WingfieldSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1935
- Barlow v. FosterWisconsin Supreme Court · 1912
- Humphries v. KendallSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1937
- Cunningham v. Union Pacific Railway Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1885
- Arkansas Power & Light Co. v. ConnellySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1932
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.