Keegan v. Hohorst

235 A.D. 871
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 15, 1932·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Judgment affirmed, with costs, on authority of Hughes v. Borden’s Farm Products Company, Inc. (252 N. Y. 532) and Hart v. Hudson River Bridge Co. (80 id. 622). Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell and Davis, JJ., concur; Kapper, J., dissents upon the ground that the law of the case requires a finding that the alleged grease spot on the sidewalk was placed there by the defendants or their employees, and that there is no evidence to support such a finding; further, that the proof is just as consistent with a finding that the grease spot was deposited by a customer of the defendants as it is with the finding reached by the jury.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Keegan v. Hohorst, 235 A.D. 871 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).

235 A.D. 871 (Keegan v. Hohorst) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Tagg v. Senner
252 A.D. 784 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1937)
Berta v. Mak Fruit & Vegetable Market, Inc.
237 A.D. 900 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1933)