Legal Opinion

Oliphant v. Hamm

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided January 12, 1925PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hart, J.,

(after stating the facts). It is first contended by counsel for the defendant that the evidence is not sufficient to support the verdict.

The relative rights of pedestrians and motor vehicles in a public street are equal, and each is obliged to act with due regard to the movements of the other. Neither is called upon to anticipate negligence of the other. Johnnie Hamm was twelve years of age, and was possessed of the mental and bodily vigor usual to boys of his age at the time he was injured. He had a right to walk along the street, observing such care as children of like age are…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Minor v. MapesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
  2. Carter v. BrownSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918
  3. Millsaps v. BrogdonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
  4. Dubisson v. McMullinSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1924
  5. L. J. Smith Construction Co. v. TateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1922

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Haralson v. Jones Truck LinesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1954
  2. Morel v. LeeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1930
  3. Graham and Seaman v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1938
  4. Pierce v. SicardSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928
  5. Lion Oil Refining Company v. SmithSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1939

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