Legal Opinion
Krohe v. Goldman
City of New York Municipal Court
Decided May 28, 1938PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLevy, J.
Two automobiles collided and each was damaged as a result of that accident. Krohe owned one automobile, and Goldman the other. Two actions, to recover for the resulting property damage, were instituted in the Municipal Court of the City of New York — Goldman first sued Krohe in the Second District, Bronx, and Krohe then sued Goldman in the First District, Bronx. A general denial was pleaded by each defendant in each action. Both are non-jury cases. Goldman now moves in the First District to remove Krohe’s action against him to the Second District and to consolidate the two actions.
“ In…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Mutual Life Insurance v. HillmonSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Sherlock v. ManwarenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1924
- Goldey v. BiermanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922
- Datz v. Economy Cotton Goods Stores, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1934
- Miller v. BaillardAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1908
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Jerome Hafter v. Ruth Farkas and Jonathan FarkasCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1974
- Spector v. MermelsteinDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1972
- Condren v. GraceDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1992
- Denton v. KoshferNew York Supreme Court · 1951
- Dasheff v. Bath & Tennis Club of Westhampton, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1959
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.