Balto. Ohio R. Co. v. Howard Co.
Court of Appeals of Maryland
1Opinion of the Court
This is the second appeal in this case. The first case is reported in 111 Md. 175. As the record now before us shows that the pleadings are the same and that the plaintiff offered substantially the same evidence to support its case as it did at the former trial, it is unnecessary again to notice the pleadings or to discuss at any great length the plaintiff's evidence. The opinion in the former case, in which the facts relied on by the plaintiff are set out by JUDGE BRISCOE, dispenses with the necessity of re-stating them. We need only say that the evidence in the present record tends to…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Bailey v. BussingSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1859
- Danbury & Norwalk Railroad v. WilsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1852
- Inhabitants of West Boylston v. MasonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
- City of Galveston v. GonzalesCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1894
3Cited by28 opinions
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Scarlett Harbor Associates Ltd. PartnershipCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1996
- Baltimore Transit Co. v. State Rx Rel. SchrieferCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1944
- Keitz v. National Paving & Contracting Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1957
- Parler & Wobber v. Miles & Stockbridge, P.C.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2000
- Hanscome v. PerryCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1988
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.