Legal Opinion

Hiller v. Shaw

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided December 29, 1932PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

By SHERICK, J.

The defendant in error having deliberately chosen the theory upon which he sought to hold the husband liable for his wife’s negligence, and having adhered strictly to that view throughout the trial, even to the extent of objection to defense testimony offered as to whether or not the husband exercised any control, or right of control, of Iris automobile at the time, makes us now indisposed to consider any other theory of responsibility under the pleadings, even if it were within our power, as it is not, to peimit amendment, or consider the basing of liability of the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Bloom v. Leech, Admr.Ohio Supreme Court · 1929
  2. Bailey v. ParkerOhio Court of Appeals · 1930
  3. Ohio Power Co. v. Fittro, Admx.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1930
  4. Riley v. SperawOhio Court of Appeals · 1931

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. McCarthy, Lebit, Crystal & Haiman Co. v. First Union Management, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1993
  2. Lowenthal v. MortimerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
  3. Rogers v. CrawfordSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1952
  4. O'Hagan v. ByronSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1943
  5. Board of Education v. Nolte Tillar Bros. Construction Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1943

3 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