Legal Opinion

Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Martin

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 14, 1934No. 24154PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJones, J.

Since the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court because the proof failed to show actionable negligence on the part of the defendant below, it became its obvious and legal duty not to remand the case, but to render final judgment for the defendant. It should have rendered the judgment which the trial court should have rendered by sustaining the motions of the defendant below for a directed verdict in its favor. This procedure was unanimously approved by this court in the first proposition of the syllabus in Majoros v. Cleveland Interurban Rd. Co., ante, 255, 187 N. E., 857. Had the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Curtiss v. . Lehigh Valley Railroad CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1922
  2. Union News Co. v. FreebornOhio Supreme Court · 1924
  3. Majoros v. Cleveland Interurban Rd. Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1933

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. J.C. Penny Co. v. RobinsonOhio Supreme Court · 1934
  2. Aetna Insurance v. Loveland Gas & Electric Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1966
  3. Lakeside Hospital v. KovarOhio Supreme Court · 1936
  4. Leighton v. Hower Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1948
  5. Shreve v. Edmundson Art Foundation, Inc.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1951

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

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

Powered by the Exa API