Legal Opinion
Pulley v. Malek
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided July 23, 1986No. 85-1526PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCelebrezze, C.J.
The first question for our review is whether a directed verdict on the issue of liability should have been entered in favor of appellee. Appellants contend that there was sufficient evidence supporting the statutory defense that appellee had tormented the dog to send this case to the jury. We agree with appellants.
Civ. R. 50(A)(4) states that a motion for a directed verdict shall not be entered unless, after construing the evidence most strongly in favor of the non-moving party, reasonable minds could come to but one conclusion adverse to that party. The court of appeals determined that…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Taylor v. City of CincinnatiOhio Supreme Court · 1944
- Columbus-Suburban Coach Lines, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1969
- Bush v. Harvey Transfer Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1946
- Wheeling Steel Corp. v. PorterfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1970
- H. E. Culbertson Co. v. WardenOhio Supreme Court · 1931
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Wagner v. Roche LaboratoriesOhio Supreme Court · 1999
- Earl Evans Chevrolet, Inc. v. General Motors Corp.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1991
- Khamis v. EversonOhio Court of Appeals · 1993
- Hampel v. Food Ingredients Specialties, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 2000
- SH by and Through Robinson v. BistryskiUtah Supreme Court · 1996
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.