Legal Opinion

Scharff v. Levine

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided May 21, 1928No. 1336PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPardee, J.

There is a very sharp conflict in the evidence. The plaintiff and her witnesses claimed that the accident resulted from the sole negli-S'fpice ox u... fi-i-iver of the defendant’s car; while the claim ot the aerciiutmt nesses was that the accident was caused by the sole negligence of the driver of the car in which the plaintiff was riding. The jury arrived at the conclusion, as is shown by their unanimous verdict, that they believed the evidence of the plaintiff and disbelieved that of the defendant, and we cannot say, from an examination of the record, that this finding is manifestly against…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Cincinnati Traction Co. v. KrogerOhio Supreme Court · 1926
  2. Rogers v. ZieglerOhio Court of Appeals · 1925
  3. Armuleuis v. KoblitzOhio Supreme Court · 1926
  4. Mulvihill v. FrohmillerOhio Court of Appeals · 1926

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Kopachy v. BlankOhio Court of Appeals · 1929
  2. Cincinnati Street Ry. Co. v. HenkelOhio Court of Appeals · 1930
  3. Parks v. TaylorOhio Court of Appeals · 1935
  4. Bommer v. DaleyOhio Court of Appeals · 1929

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API