Legal Opinion

Modrzynski v. Lust

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided July 18, 1949No. Nos. 21294-21295PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

By SKEEL, PJ.

These causes come to this court on appeal on questions of law from a final order of the common pleas court overruling defendant’s motion for judgment at the conclusion of plaintiffs’ case, which motion was renewed and again overruled at the close of all the evidence, and from a final order overruling defendant’s motion for judgment after the jury was discharged because they were unable to agree upon a verdict.

The plaintiffs are husband and wife. They each brought a separate action against the defendant for malpractice, growing out of a major operation performed by the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. James v. GrigsbySupreme Court of Kansas · 1923
  2. Dishman v. Northern Pacific Beneficial Ass'nWashington Supreme Court · 1917
  3. Brear v. SweetWashington Supreme Court · 1930
  4. Wharton v. LongOhio Court of Appeals · 1934
  5. Davish v. ArnOhio Court of Appeals · 1940

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Young v. Key Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1989
  2. Rodríguez Crespo v. HernándezSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1988
  3. Dr. Finn F. L'Orange v. The Medical Protective CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1968
  4. Hart v. SteeleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1967
  5. Oberlin v. FriedmanOhio Supreme Court · 1965

11 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