Legal Opinion

Burrowes v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co.

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided June 10, 1910No. 15,846PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Opinion on motion for rehearing of case reported in S!> Neb. 497.

1Opinion of the CourtFawcett, J.

A reargument was allowed upon a motion for a rehearing. Counsel for plaintiff vigorously assails our former opinion (85 Neb. 497) upon the ground that “the opinion does not reveal the facts.” This is a serious charge, but a careful reexamination of the record shows it to be Avithout foundation. That the opinion does not mention and discuss all of the testimony will be conceded in any case, but the opinion in the case at bar fairly reflects all of the material evidence in the record. This was sufficient. The gravamen of counsel’s complaint is that the opinion does not show that all of the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. PowersNebraska Supreme Court · 1905
  2. Burrowes v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1909
  3. Kansas City, Pittsburg & Gulp Railroad v. BarnettSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1901

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. National Importing & Trading Co. v. E. A. Bear & Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1927
  2. Hawkins v. Vermont Hydro-Electric Corp.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1924
  3. M.I.S. Engineering v. U.S. Express Enterprises, Inc.District Court, D. Nebraska · 2006
  4. Behrman v. A.C.L.R. R. Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1921

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

Powered by the Exa API