Legal Opinion

Woodworth v. New York Central Rd.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 9, 1948No. 31161 and 31153PublishedCited by 38 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.

At the close of plaintiff’s evidence and again at the close of all the evidence, The New York Central Railroad Company, hereinafter, called railroad company, and The American Pork & Hoe Company, hereinafter called the fork and hoe company, each made motions for a directed verdict in its favor, which motions were overruled.

The defendants now insist that those motions should have been sustained on the grounds that there was no negligence proven against them, and that the plaintiff’s decedent was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.

In reviewing the record bearing upon these…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Detroit, Toledo & Ironton Rd. Co. v. RohrsOhio Supreme Court · 1926
  2. Patton v. Pennsylvania Rd. Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1939
  3. Pennsylvania Rd. Co. v. RusynikOhio Supreme Court · 1927
  4. Maddex v. ColumberOhio Supreme Court · 1926
  5. Martin, Jr. v. HeintzOhio Supreme Court · 1933

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by38 opinions

  1. Burnett v. New York Central RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  2. Tanzi v. New York Central R. Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1951
  3. Lones v. Detroit, Toledo And Ironton Railroad CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1968
  4. Harris v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2013
  5. Continental Baking Co. v. Pennsylvania Rd.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1950

33 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