Genay v. Norris
1 S.C.L. 6
Opinion
in charging the jury, told them, that this was a very wanton outrage upon a stranger in the country. That notwithstanding it was called a frolic, yet the proceedings appeared to be the result of a combination, which wrought a very serious injury to the plaintiff, and such a one as entitled him to very exemplary damages, especially from a professional character, who could not plead ignorance of the operation and powerful effects of this medicine.
Verdict for plaintiff, 400/. damages.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Genay v. Norris, 1 S.C.L. 6 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1784).
1 S.C.L. 6 (Genay v. Norris) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Karrie Gurwood & Howard Gurwood v. GCA Services Group, Inc.
Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2025
Harleysville Group Insurance v. Heritage Communities, Inc.
803 S.E.2d 288 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2017)
Harleysville Group Ins. v. Heritage Communities, Inc.
Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2017
Groshek v. TREWIN
2010 WI 51 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2010)
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker
128 S. Ct. 2605 (Supreme Court, 2008)
Christus Gardens, Inc. v. Baker, Donelson, Bearman & Caldwell
205 S.W.3d 917 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 2006)
Hartford Fire Insurance v. First National Bank of Atmore
198 F. Supp. 2d 1308 (S.D. Alabama, 2002)
South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance v. Love Chevrolet, Inc.
478 S.E.2d 57 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1996)
Vivian Mattison Morty Ronald Mattison v. Dallas Carrier Corporation
947 F.2d 95 (Fourth Circuit, 1991)
Wagoner v. Bennett
1991 OK 70 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1991)
Campus Sweater & Sportswear Co. v. M. B. Kahn Construction Co.
515 F. Supp. 64 (D. South Carolina, 1979)