Hunter v. Brumby
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtWeygandt, C. J.
The defendant’s numerous assignments of error may well be reduced to two for the purpose of discussion.
The first relates to four written instructions requested by the plaintiff and given to the jury by the court before argument. It is unnecessary to quote each of the instructions inasmuch as the defendant contends that the same error is common to all. Typical is Number 3 which reads as follows:
“The court says to you, as a matter of law, that the statute of the state of Ohio in force and effect on June 26th, 1932, provided as follows:
“ 'Sec. 6310-20. (a) The driver of a vehicle overtaking…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Makranczy v. GelfandOhio Supreme Court · 1924
- Lima Used Car Exchange Co. v. HemperlyOhio Supreme Court · 1929
- Washington Fidelity National Ins. v. HerbertOhio Supreme Court · 1932
- Cincinnati Traction Co. v. YoungOhio Supreme Court · 1926
3Cited by7 opinions
- Glasco v. MendelmanOhio Supreme Court · 1944
- Simko v. MillerOhio Supreme Court · 1938
- Senn, Admx. v. LacknerOhio Court of Appeals · 1951
- Perazzo v. Dayton Hasty-Tasty, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1962
- Spargur v. Dayton Power & Light Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1959
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.