Legal Opinion
DeTunno v. Shull
Ohio Court of Appeals
Decided March 1, 1956No. Nos. 5291, 5292PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
By FESS, J.
Two negligence actions were, by agreement, consolidated for trial. In case No. 5291, the minor plaintiff brought his action for damages for personal injury. In case No. 5292, the minor’s father sought damages for medical care, expense and loss of the child’s earnings. In each case the jury returned verdicts for the defendant.
Case No. 5291 is an appeal on questions of law taken by the defendant from an order of the court granting the minor plaintiff a new trial.
Case No. 5292 is an appeal on questions of law taken by the plaintiff from the judgment entered on the verdict for…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Birmingham Amusement Co. v. NorrisSupreme Court of Alabama · 1927
- Carangelo v. Nutmeg Farm, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1932
- Scullane v. KelloggMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897
- Farley v. Charleston Basket & Veneer Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1897
- Gerbing v. McDonaldWisconsin Supreme Court · 1930
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Kubiszak v. Rini's SupermarketOhio Court of Appeals · 1991
- Heldman v. Uniroyal, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1977
- Younce v. BakerOhio Court of Appeals · 1966
- City of Cleveland v. PetkoOhio Court of Appeals · 1996
- Streit v. KestelOhio Court of Appeals · 1959
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.