Legal Opinion

Cincinnati & Suburban Bell Telephone Co. v. Eadle

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided December 11, 1944No. 6450PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

By MATTHEWS, J.

The plaintiff in' this action seeks to recover for damages to equipment which the City of Cincinnati had authorized it to install in Queen City Avenue, one of its public streets, beneath the sidewalk, and which the defendant disturbed while excavating preparatory to erecting a building on an abutting lot. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant upon which judgment was rendered. This appeal is from that judgment.

The equipment consisted of telephone and firealarm cables, protected by tile conduits. The sections of the conduit weighed about ninety pounds each and were…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Weber v. Buffalo Railway Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1897
  2. Higginbotham v. KearseWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1931
  3. Scheller v. SilbermintzAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1906

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Haller v. Borror Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1990
  2. San Jacinto Sand Co. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1968
  3. Domany v. Otis Elevator Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1966
  4. Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. Charles Ind Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1954
  5. Cincinnati Bell, Inc. v. CooperHamilton County Municipal Court · 1985

5 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