Legal Opinion

Keegan v. Hohorst

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided May 15, 1932PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Judgment affirmed, with costs, on authority of Hughes v. Borden’s Farm Products Company, Inc. (252 N. Y. 532) and Hart v. Hudson River Bridge Co. (80 id. 622). Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell and Davis, JJ., concur; Kapper, J., dissents upon the ground that the law of the case requires a finding that the alleged grease spot on the sidewalk was placed there by the defendants or their employees, and that there is no evidence to support such a finding; further, that the proof is just as consistent with a finding that the grease spot was deposited by a customer of the defendants as it is with…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Hughes v. Borden's Farm Products Company, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1929

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Berta v. Mak Fruit & Vegetable Market, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1933
  2. Tagg v. SennerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1937

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API