Durst v. Griffith
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
MAUCK, PJ.
It is strongly urged that the judgment is contrary to the weight of the evidence. The most that we can say in that behalf is that the case was a close one, and under the rule that prevents our substituting our own for the judgment of the jury we find ourselves unable to disturb the verdict and judgment upon that ground.
There are other novel and important questions raised by the record. The defendant in the case was under sixteen years of age. The complainant was seventeen. It is argued that the justice of the peace in the first instance, and finally the Court of Common Pleas, was…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Hinman v. TaylorSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1817
- Miller v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1895
- Hanna v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1877
- Dehler v. State ex rel. BierckIndiana Court of Appeals · 1899
- State ex rel. Bales v. BakerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1902
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Anonymous v. AnonymousNew York Family Court · 1972
- State ex rel. Simons v. KiserOhio Court of Appeals · 1950
- State, Ex Rel. Love v. JonesOhio Court of Appeals · 1953
- State ex rel Johnson v. MooneyOhio Court of Appeals · 1961
- Hiple, Admr. v. SkolmutchOhio Court of Appeals · 1950
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.