Legal Opinion
Ohio Public Service Co. v. Myers
Ohio Court of Appeals
Decided May 11, 1934No. 710PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
By WASHBURN, PJ.
We hold that there is no substantial difference in the language of said copy and the meaning conveyed and intended to be conveyed thereby, and the language alleged and the meaning claimed, as set forth in the amended petition of Myers, and therefore it was not error for the court to overrule the motion of the company for judgment, made at -the close of the evidence, on the ground of failure of proof of the charge in the very words of the charge.
Barnett v Ward, 36 Oh St 107.
The important contention of counsel for the company is that the company published a defamation…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Gambrill v. SchooleyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1901
- Hedgepeth Ex Rel. Hedgepeth v. ColemanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
- Sorensen v. WoodNebraska Supreme Court · 1932
- Adams v. LawsonSupreme Court of Virginia · 1867
- Peterson v. Western Union Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Bander v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
- Rickbeil v. Grafton Deaconess HospitalNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1946
- Hartmann v. WinchellNew York Court of Appeals · 1947
- Garren v. Southland CorporationSupreme Court of Georgia · 1976
- State v. ThorpeOhio Court of Appeals · 1936