Legal Opinion

Khoury v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided November 28, 1928PublishedCited by 103 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCrosby, J.

This is an action to recover for personal injuries received by the plaintiff when struck by an automobile owned and operated by one Parnell. After the trial was begun and after the opening by the plaintiff, the parties submitted the following statement of certain agreed facts: “It is herewith agreed between the parties to the above entitled action that on November 17, 1925, one Eric Parnell was in the general employment of the defendant and was the owner of a Mercer automobile which was involved in an *237accident on that day, which accident resulted in injuries to the plaintiff in this action.…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Singer Manufacturing Co. v. RahnSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
  2. Railroad Company v. HanningSupreme Court of the United States · 1873
  3. Shepard v. JacobsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1910
  4. Chisholm's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1921
  5. Pyyny v. Loose-Wiles Biscuit Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1925

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

3Cited by103 opinions

  1. Newspapers, Inc. v. LoveTexas Supreme Court · 1964
  2. Kelley v. RossiMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1985
  3. Harnish v. Children's Hospital Medical CenterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1982
  4. American National Insurance v. DenkeTexas Supreme Court · 1936
  5. Hayward v. YostIdaho Supreme Court · 1952

98 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