Foxworthy v. City of Hastings
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error to the district court for Adams county. Tried below before Morris, J. Holmberg v. Ilauah, 16 Neb., 339. Miller v. Hurford, 11 Id., 381. Ex parte Thomason, 16 Id., 239. Ives v. Norris, 13 Id., 2S4. Turner v. Althaus, 6 Neb., 54. Holmberg v. Mauch, 16 Id., 338. 2 Dillon Mun. Corp., Sec. 786. Buchlin v. Ford, 5 Barb., 393. People v. Gilbert, 18 •Johns., 227.
1Opinion of the CourtMaxwell, J.
The plaintiff, in his petition, after alleging the incorporation of the city of Hastings, says that: “ On said 21st ■day of January, 1886, there was in said city a street named Second street, along and south of block four of Moore’s addition, and along the north side of said street was a sidewalk, which said street and sidewalk was and still is a public way, under the jurisdiction and control of said city, and open to the public for passage. Long prior to January 21st, and from about the first day of January, ,A.D. 1886, the defendant negligently and carelessly allowed ice and snow to…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Parrot v. Wells, Fargo & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1873
3Cited by9 opinions
- Gohman v. City of St. BernardOhio Supreme Court · 1924
- City of Hastings v. FoxworthyNebraska Supreme Court · 1895
- Brotherton v. Manhattan Beach Improvement Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1896
- Omaha & Republican Valley Railway Co. v. BradyNebraska Supreme Court · 1894
- Touzalin v. City of OmahaNebraska Supreme Court · 1889
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.