Legal Opinion

Taugher v. Ling

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 12, 1933No. 23696 and 23697PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWeygandt, C. J.

At the threshold of these actions is the chief contention of the defendants that the allegations of the amended petitions disclose such conduct on the part of each plaintiff as to preclude recovery for the injuries of which he complains. In other words, it is urged that each purchaser and the sellers were engaged in a common enterprise involving a violation of the law prohibiting the sale and purchase of intoxicating liquors, and that therefore neither party is in position to ask relief in a court of law.

To this argument each plaintiff replies that his petition discloses no violation of law…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Schell v. DuBoisOhio Supreme Court · 1916
  2. Portage Markets Co. v. GeorgeOhio Supreme Court · 1924

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. In Re Bendectin Litigation.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1988
  2. Donaldson v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1938
  3. State v. WilliamsOhio Court of Appeals · 1952
  4. Yochem v. Gloria, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1938
  5. Pamela Swisher-Sherman v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1994

5 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