Craddock v. Queen City Coach Company
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtDeNNY, C.J.
The primary question involved on this appeal is whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to the information directed to be given in the order entered in the court below.
According to the evidence adduced in the hearing below, the only statement or report made by defendant’s driver was the statement taken by counsel for defendant for use in making up the report required by the Interstate Commerce Commission (I.C.C.), on a specific form furnished by the I.C.C. Parts of the accident report were reproduced verbatim in the report to the I.C.C.
It further appears from the evidence that the defendant…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Belding v. St. Louis Public Service Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1948
- Evtush v. the Hudson Bus Transportation Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1951
- McMahon v. Hayes-73rd Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1950
- Evtush v. Hudson Bus Transp. Co., Inc.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1950
- LaChance v. Service Trucking Co.District Court, D. Maryland · 1963
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- City of Atlanta v. WatsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1996
- Betty Jean Blankenship, Administratrix of the Estate of Jack Blankenship, Deceased v. General Motors CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1970
- City of Atlanta v. WatsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1996