Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Mason Tire & Rubber Co. v. Cummins-Blair Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 11, 1927No. 20139Published

1ConcurrenceDay, J.

In view of the fact that all members of the court participating in this case do not concur in each of the various propositions set forth in the foregoing per curiam, it is deemed advisable to state the reasons and authorities relied upon by the members of the court concurring in the various propositions decided.

The first group of offers to prove, made by the plaintiff below, involved the alleged error of the trial court in excluding the evidence by which plaintiff sought to show that the defendant interrupted plaintiff’s access to the site of the work and interfered with the bringing of…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. United States v. Bethlehem Steel Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1907
  2. Guerini Stone Co. v. P. J. Carlin Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1916
  3. Guerini Stone Co. v. P. J. Carlin Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1919
  4. Mosler Safe Co. v. Maiden Lane Safe Deposit Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1910
  5. Booth v. Cleveland Rolling Mill Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1878

13 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