Legal Opinion
Tair v. Rook Investment Co.
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided May 13, 1942No. 28917PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWeygandt, C. J.
The single assignment of error here urged by the defendant involves two statements made by the trial court in the charge to the jury. The first was given before the arguments. It reads as follows:
“I charge you, as a matter of law, that it was the duty of the defendant, The Rock Investment Company, to maintain the rear stairway of the premises at 5518 to 5612 Woodland avenue, Cleveland, Ohio, in good repair on July 10, 1940.”
The second statement was made during the general charge after the arguments. The substance was the same but it was expressed in the following form:
“If you find by a…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Chambers v. LoweSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
- Palmigiani v. D'ArgenioMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1920
- Johnson v. CarterSupreme Court of Iowa · 1934
- Vallen v. CullenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1921
3Cited by9 opinions
- Shroades v. Rental Homes, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1981
- Gardner v. WoodMichigan Supreme Court · 1987
- Ogle v. KellyOhio Court of Appeals · 1993
- Clarke v. KerchnerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1971
- Thrash v. HillOhio Supreme Court · 1980
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.