Legal Opinion

Martindale v. Corbin

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided December 19, 1924No. 11,929PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

The only proper assignment of error relates to the action of the trial court in overruling the motion for a new trial. Each specification in this motion requires a consideration of the evidence. Appellee calls attention to the fact that appellants have not set out a concise statement of the evidence in their brief and insists that no question is presented for our determination. The decisions of the Supreme and this court sustaining appellee's contention as to each specification in the motion for a new trial are numerous and decisive. See Clemens v. Stoner, Exr. (1920), 73 Ind. App. 370;…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. BowenIndiana Supreme Court · 1913
  2. Webster v. BlighIndiana Court of Appeals · 1912
  3. Washington Hotel Realty Co. v. Bedford Stone & Construction Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1924
  4. Rose v. City of JeffersonvilleIndiana Supreme Court · 1916
  5. Huffman v. ThompsonIndiana Supreme Court · 1912

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Humphrey v. Pleasure Park CompanyIndiana Court of Appeals · 1933
  2. Gray v. JamesIndiana Court of Appeals · 1935

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

Powered by the Exa API