Legal Opinion

Conrad v. Wheelock

District Court, S.D. Illinois

Decided January 21, 1928No. 17880PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FITZHENRY, District Judge.

Defendants’ motion, at the close of all of the evidence, for a peremptory instruction to the jury to find the defendants not guilty, raises two material questions: (1) Whether the defendants willfully injured plaintiff’s intestate, causing his death; and (2) if the injury was not the result of willful negligence on the part of defendants or their servants, then was plaintiff’s intestate guilty of contributory negligence just before and at the time of the injury?

It is too late now to contend that the count charging willful negligence, in plaintiff’s declaration, is…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. BodemerIllinois Supreme Court · 1892
  2. Southern Pacific Co. v. PoolSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
  3. Brown v. Illinois Terminal Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1925
  4. Illinois Central Railroad v. LeinerIllinois Supreme Court · 1903
  5. Heidenreich v. BremnerIllinois Supreme Court · 1913

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Garrett v. Pennsylvania R.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1931
  2. Hartl v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. CO.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1934
  3. Weaver v. MarkCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1940
  4. Blunt v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1929

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

Powered by the Exa API