Monasmith v. Cosden Oil Co.
Nebraska Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtGood, J.
This is a personal injury action arising out of an automobile accident. Plaintiff recovered judgment, and defendants have appealed.
Numerous errors are assigned for reversal. They may be properly considered under three general headings: (1) Is the verdict supported by sufficient evidence? (2) Did the court err in refusing to give requested instructions? (3) Is the verdict excessive?
There is evidence tending to prove the following pertinent facts: Defendant Crawford is an employee of his codefendant Cosden Oil Company, and on the night of July 11, 1930, in the conduct of his master’s business,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Day v. Metropolitan Utilities DistrictNebraska Supreme Court · 1927
- Giles v. WelshNebraska Supreme Court · 1931
- Tutsch v. Omaha Structural Steel WorksNebraska Supreme Court · 1923
- Pratt v. Western Bridge & Construction Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1928
- Cromwell v. Fillmore CountyNebraska Supreme Court · 1931
3Cited by29 opinions
- Buresh v. GeorgeNebraska Supreme Court · 1948
- Friese v. GulbrandsonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1943
- Guerin v. ForburgerNebraska Supreme Court · 1956
- LaFleur v. PoeschNebraska Supreme Court · 1934
- Pierson v. JensenNebraska Supreme Court · 1948
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.