Legal Opinion

Feldser v. Beeman

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided March 8, 1939No. [No. 45, January Term, 1939.]PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtParke, J.

At the close of the testimony on the part of the plaintiff, the defendants submitted prayers requesting that a verdict in favor of the defendants be directed on the alternative theories that there was no legally sufficient evidence from which the jury could find the defendants guilty of negligence; or, if there were such testimony, that the plaintiff would be barred from a recovery because of contributory negligence. The court refused the prayers and the case went to the jury without the introduction of any testimony in behalf of the defendants, and the judgment on the verdict rendered was…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Gitomir v. United Railways & Electric Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1929
  2. United Railways & Electric Co. v. PerkinsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1927
  3. Mears v. McElfishCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1921
  4. Waltring v. JamesCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1920
  5. Opecello v. MeadsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1926

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. State Accident Commission v. Carroll-Howard Supply Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1944
  2. Atran v. FurnessCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1968
  3. A-Z Learning Daycare v. WCAB (DiGiorgio)Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2017

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

Powered by the Exa API