Legal Opinion · Dissent

Debuhr v. Taylor

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided August 11, 1942No. 45935Published

1DissentMiller, J.

(dissenting) — I am unable to agree with the majority opinion herein and respectfully dissent. The only error assigned is the giving of instruction 5, quoted in the majority opinion. I do not think that said instruction was erroneous. Accordingly, I would affirm.

As I read the majority opinion, it holds that instruction 5 is erroneous for three reasons, to wit: (1) a defendant may not invoke the no-eyewitness rule; (2) instruction 5 gives defendant the benefit of affirmative proof rather than a presumption ; (3) the testimony of plaintiff and the physical facts render the no-eyewitness rule…

2Cases cited41 opinions

  1. Looney v. Metropolitan RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
  2. Durning v. HymanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
  3. Yarnell v. Kansas City, Fort Scott & Memphis RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
  4. Marchetti v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1928
  5. Lunde v. Cudahy Packing Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1908

36 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