Legal Opinion

Almond v. Rubenstein

Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County

Decided March 13, 1923Published

1Opinion of the CourtDarby, J.

The plaintiff recovered a verdict against both defendants for $1,350.

The motion for a new trial on behalf of the company is based upon three grounds: First, that the plaintiff failed to show that Rubenstein was acting as a prohibition officer at the time of the alleged assault and search; second, that the company is in no event liable for exemplary damages; third, that the damages in any event are excessive and were awarded under influence of passion or prejudice.

The first ground of the action was the subject of consideration upon the trial. It was claimed on behalf of the plaintiff that the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. The Amiable NancySupreme Court of the United States · 1818
  2. Lienkauf & Strauss v. MorrisSupreme Court of Alabama · 1880
  3. North v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1894
  4. Growbarger v. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1907
  5. Peelle v. State ex rel. HipesIndiana Supreme Court · 1889

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