Legal Opinion

Bauer v. Cleveland Ry. Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 3, 1943No. 29222PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHast, J.

The first ground of error complained of is that the court, having withdrawn the case from the jury and having directed a verdict for the defendant, erred in denying the application of the plaintiff for a special finding of facts and conclusions of law. The plaintiff claims this right by reason of Section 11421-2, Oeneral Code, which is as follows:

“When questions of fact are tried by the court, its findings may be general for the plaintiff or defendant, unless, with a view of excepting to the court’s decision upon questions of law involved in the trial, one of the parties so requests, in which…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Hamden Lodge No. 517 v. Ohio Fuel Gas Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1934
  2. Milwaukee Land Co. v. RuesinkMontana Supreme Court · 1915
  3. Michigan-Ohio-Indiana Coal Assn. v. NighOhio Supreme Court · 1936
  4. Martin, Jr. v. HeintzOhio Supreme Court · 1933
  5. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. HuffOhio Supreme Court · 1934

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

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. State v. Adams (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2015
  2. In re Adoption of GibsonOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  3. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. v. BattleOhio Court of Appeals · 1975
  4. Waller v. MayfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  5. Bruch v. Benedict Barnes Bros.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1946

21 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