Industrial Commission v. Carden
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtStephenson, J.
When motions for directed verdicts were interposed by both sides, each admitted that the testimony of the other was true and that it would be considered in its most favorable light toward the party moved against. In considering the “favorable light” phase under such circumstances, we arrive at the only rational conclusion, that the “favorable light” goes out and the testimony of each of the parties litigant is considered for what it is worth.
The trial judge found that Carden had a steel shovel in his hand when he was struck by the bolt of lightning. He took judicial notice of the fact that…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Industrial Commission v. NelsonOhio Supreme Court · 1933
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. RochesterCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1926
- Slanina v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1927
- Grabler Manufacturing Co. v. WrobelOhio Supreme Court · 1932
- Thrailkill v. SmithOhio Supreme Court · 1922
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- McNees v. Cincinnati Street Ry. Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1949
- Marlow v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1967
- Kaiser v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1940
- Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. LungOhio Supreme Court · 1935
- Levick v. BonnellOhio Supreme Court · 1940
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.