Higbee Co. v. Lindemann
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The issues in these two cases are identical and they were consolidated for the purpose of trial, the first being by Mrs. Lindemann for damages for personal injuries, and the second by her husband for loss of services, medical expenses, etc., arising out of such injuries. A verdict was directed by the Common Pleas Court upon the pleadings and plaintiff’s statement of the case to the jury. That judgment was reversed by the Court of Appeals, two judges concurring, one dissenting; upon motion this court directed certification.
Though the statement was at some length, the essential and…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Smiley v. Arrow Spring Bed Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1941
- Crawford v. HalkovicsOhio Supreme Court · 1982
- Glasco v. MendelmanOhio Supreme Court · 1944
- Hangen v. HadfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1939
- Bickel v. American Can Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1950
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.