Legal Opinion

Sack v. A. R. Nunn & Son

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 26, 1934No. 24755PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.

The problem to be determined by this court is whether the trial court under the circumstances of this case as developed by the evidence erred in sustaining the motion of the defendants to direct a verdict at the close of plaintiff’s case. The plaintiff’s theory of the case is that when the accident occurred the automobile in which she was riding was constructively in the possession and under the control of the defendants who were using it to carry out a contract which they had made to transport the family of the decedent, including the plaintiff, to the church and cemetery and then back to…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Pennsylvania Co. v. RoySupreme Court of the United States · 1880
  2. Babbitt v. SayOhio Supreme Court · 1929
  3. Greenberg & Bond Co. v. YarbroughCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1921
  4. Schickling v. Post Publishing Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1927
  5. Dippel v. JulianoCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1927

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Albain v. Flower HospitalOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Bennett v. Sinclair Refining Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1944
  3. Gilbert v. Gwin-McCollum Funeral Home, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1958
  4. National Fire Insurance Co. of Hartford v. Westgate Construction Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1964
  5. Capitol Chevrolet Co. v. Lawrence Warehouse Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1955

4 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