Legal Opinion

Franklin v. Kansas City

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided January 29, 1923PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBland, J.

This is an action for damages for personal injuries. Plaintiff recovered a verdict and judgment in the sum of $5000. Tlie court sustained defendant’s motion for a new trial “because of improper argument on the part of plaintiff’s attorney.” Plaintiff lias appealed. The argument causing the granting of the new trial is as follows:

“Now, gentlemen, if you do find for him (plaintiff) he is a young boy with a young wife and young baby..

Mr. Lee : (interrupting) Just a moment. I ask that counsel be reprimanded for that remark — just a minute —first, because there isn’t any proof of it, and, second,…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Stephens v. Hannibal & St. Joseph RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1888
  2. Dayharsh v. Hannibal & St. Joseph RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1890
  3. Mahaney v. St. Louis & Hannibal RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
  4. Williams v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1894
  5. Pope v. ThomsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Heibel v. RobisonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1958
  2. Holtz v. Daniel Hamm Drayage Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1948
  3. Halley Ex Rel. Halley v. SchoppSupreme Court of Missouri · 1966
  4. State Ex Rel. State Highway Commission v. PattonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1935

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

Powered by the Exa API