Legal Opinion

Golamb v. Layton

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 6, 1950No. 32033PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtZimmerman, J.

In pressing for a reversal of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, defendant Layton relies principally on two alleged errors:

1. Failure of the trial court to charge on contributory negligence.

2. Misconduct of counsel for plaintiff in his opening argument to the jury.

Two theories as to the cause of the collision were presented to the jury. Defendant Macielewicz contended, in effect, that defendant Layton suddenly swerved his car from its proper lane of travel across the path of his, Macielewicz’s, car; that he, Macielewicz, to avoid a crash, immediately turned the front wheels of his car to…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Bush v. Harvey Transfer Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1946
  2. Huckshold v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1886
  3. State v. AuerbachOhio Supreme Court · 1923

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. State v. MaurerOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Snyder v. StanfordOhio Supreme Court · 1968
  3. Kathryn Eisenhauer, Exrx. v. Ronald F. Burger and P. And P. Transport, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1970
  4. Pierson v. HermannOhio Court of Appeals · 1965
  5. Richlin v. Gooding Amusement Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1960

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API