Legal Opinion
Hart v. Ruduk
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided November 18, 1931PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRhodes, J.
This is a negligence action. The court having granted a nonsuit and dismissed the complaint, the question here is whether or not there were any facts upon which a jury might have based a finding of negligence of the defendant and freedom from contributory negligence on plaintiff’s part. If any such facts *454were proven, then plaintiff was entitled to have them considered by the jury and in determining this question she is entitled to the benefit of every fact and the most favorable inference that could be drawn therefrom. (McDonald v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 167 N. Y. 66; Sesselmann v.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- McDonald v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1901
- Kraus v. . BirnbaumNew York Court of Appeals · 1910
- Hancock v. SteberAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1924
- Sesselmann v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1901
- Kimball v. BrillAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1923
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Bondurant v. MastinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
- Machacado v. City of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1975
- Mullen v. FayetteAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1948
- LaDuke v. International Paper Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1940
- Davis v. FarnhamAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1944