Legal Opinion

Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Kroger

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 16, 1926No. 19235PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMatthias, J.

Tbe requested charge was a correct statement of tbe law as announced by this court in Interurban Ry. & Terminal Co. v. Hancock, 75 Ohio St., 88, 78 N. E., 964, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.), 997, 116 Am. St. Rep., 710, 8 Ann. Cas., 1036, and the provision of Section 11447, General Code, respecting instructions to tbe jury before argument in civil cases, is mandatory. Chesrown v. Bevier, 101 Ohio St., 282, 128 N. E., 94. But it is contended that the trial court did not err in withdrawing such requested charge from the jury, nor in refusing to instruct the jury upon the issue of contributory negligence,…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Bradley v. Cleveland Ry. Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1925

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Bartson v. CraigOhio Supreme Court · 1929
  2. Washington Fidelity National Ins. v. HerbertOhio Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Ferguson v. Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1990
  4. Scharff v. LevineOhio Court of Appeals · 1928
  5. Hendrickson Machine Co. v. Schumacher Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1929

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

Powered by the Exa API