Legal Opinion
Dice v. Akron, Canton & Youngstown R. Co.
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided March 28, 1951No. 32414PublishedCited by 39 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*190Taft, J.
The question to be decided is: May a trial court ordinarily determine the issue as to whether an employee of a railroad was induced by fraud (other than fraud in the factum) or by mistake to execute a release of his claim arising under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act?
In considering the validity of releases- and other contracts, this court has often called attention to the difference between fraud in the factum and fraud in the inducement. Meyer v. Meyer, supra; Picklesimer v. Baltimore & Ohio Rd. Co., 151 Ohio St., 1, 84 N. E. (2d), 214; Flynn v. Sharon Steel Corp., supra; Perry…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Garrett v. Moore-Mccormack Co., Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Upton v. TribilcockSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Callen v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Brown v. Western R. Co. of Ala.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- Dice v. Akron, Canton & Youngstown RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
- Ed Schory & Sons, Inc. v. FrancisOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- Haller v. Borror Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1990
- Ed Schory & Sons, Inc. v. Soc. Natl. BankOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- Campco Distributors, Inc. v. FriesOhio Court of Appeals · 1987
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.