Legal Opinion · Dissent

Tilghman v. . R. R.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided May 31, 1916PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1DissentClark, C. J.

It is not to be expected that we should discuss all of the assignments of error, ninety-four in number, and it is not conceivable that a judge commissioned to hold the courts of the State should have committed so many errors in the trial of an action to recover damages for negligence.

Much useless labor is imposed on counsel and the courts by the multiplication of exceptions, and the practice would seem to be defensible only upon the ground that counsel do not feel confident that any exception is well taken, but hope to form a chain strong enough to sustain a new trial.

We have carefully…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Knoll v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1882
  2. Horah v. . KnoxSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1882
  3. Allen v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1912
  4. Hall v. MurdockMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
  5. Huffman v. . ClickSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1877

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. State v. . LeaSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
  2. Cole v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
  3. State v. GardnerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
  4. State v. DavisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
  5. Jones v. BloomMichigan Supreme Court · 1972

8 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