Legal Opinion
Tanzi v. New York Central R. Co.
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided March 21, 1951No. 32192PublishedCited by 36 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtTaft, J.
The first question to be considered is whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant the railroad’s motion for a directed verdict made at the close of all the evidence. In passing upon this motion, the trial court was required to construe the evidence most strongly in plaintiff’s favor. Hamden Lodge v. Ohio Fuel Gas Co., 127 Ohio St., 469, 189 N. E., 246.
On this question, much of the argument of the railroad is based upon the premise that reasonable minds can come only to the conclusion that the train was occupying the crossing at a time when the defendant Jerman’s automobile was a…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Hamden Lodge No. 517 v. Ohio Fuel Gas Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1934
- Gedeon v. East Ohio Gas Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1934
- Mudrich v. Standard Oil Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1950
- McNees v. Cincinnati Street Ry. Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1949
- Ernst v. . Hudson River Railroad Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1868
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- Moum v. MaerckleinNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1972
- Silver v. Jewish Home of CincinnatiOhio Court of Appeals · 2010
- Central Indiana Railway Co. v. Anderson Banking Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1969
- Iron Workers Local Union No. 17 Insurance Fund v. Philip Morris Inc.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1998
- Jerome C. Hartzler v. The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1970
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.