Legal Opinion

Schmukler v. Ohio-Bell Telephone Co.

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court

Decided July 25, 1953No. 619821PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

By NICOLA, J:

The Court, at the close of plaintiff’s evidence on defendant’s motion, directed the jury to return a verdict for said defendant. In due time the plaintiff filed her motion for new trial wherein she complains that the Court committed error in directing said verdict and sets up five grounds of error in said motion. The basic ground, however, is that the plaintiff’s privacy was invaded by the defendant in monitoring tlie telephone installed in her home.

In order properly to determine whether there is merit in plaintiff’s contention we must first consider the facts upon which…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. McDaniel v. Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1939
  2. Martin v. F I Y Theatre Co.Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court · 1938
  3. Johnson v. Scripps Publishing Co.Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court · 1940

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. LeCrone v. Ohio Bell Telephone Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1963
  2. Housh v. PethOhio Court of Appeals · 1955
  3. United States v. GuglielmoDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1965
  4. Huff v. Michigan Bell Telephone CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1967

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

Powered by the Exa API