Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Kellogg
Nebraska Supreme Court
Rehearing of case reported in 54 Neb. 127.
1Opinion of the CourtSullivan, J.
This cause is now before us on rehearing. The 'original opinion, which contains a sufficient statement of the facts, will be found in 54 Neb. 127.
' Counsel for defendant contended on the first submission, and still insist, that the petition does n'ot charge the company with actionable negligence. This contention is grounded on the fact that there is in the petition no 'averment that the defendant knew, or ought to.have known, of the defective appliance which was responsible for the accident. That knowledge, or inexcusable ignorance, on the part of the defendant, is an essential element in the…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Washington & Georgetown Railroad v. McDadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Rudolph v. LandwerlenIndiana Supreme Court · 1883
- Crane v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1885
- Martin v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1886
- Cleveland Paper Co. v. BanksNebraska Supreme Court · 1883
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Nichols v. BusseNebraska Supreme Court · 1993
- Horn v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 1903
- State v. PeirceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1916
- Pigeon v. W. P. Fuller & Co.California Supreme Court · 1909
- Laycock v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1919
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.