Kindle v. City of Akron

Ohio Supreme Court

Kindle v. City of Akron

169 Ohio St. (N.S.) 373

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1959

DocketNo. 35855

StatusPublished

This text of 169 Ohio St. (N.S.) 373 (Kindle v. City of Akron) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kindle v. City of Akron, 169 Ohio St. (N.S.) 373 (Ohio 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

There is no bill of exceptions properly before this court, nor was there one properly before the Court of Appeals. Under our recent decisions, however, the petition fails to allege a defect in the sidewalk of such a substantial nature as to justify the imposing of liability on the defendant city. Gallagher v. City of Toledo, 168 Ohio St., 508, 156 N. E. (2d), 466; Buckley v. City of Portsmouth, 168 Ohio St., 513, 156 N. E. (2d), 468. The record does not show a request* for leave to amend the petition.

One of defendant’s assignments of error in the Court of Appeals, and also in this court, is that the trial court erred in overruling the motion of defendant for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. On the record before the court, that motion should have been sustained.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and final judgment is rendered for defendant.

Judgment reversed,.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Taet, Matthias, Bell, Herbert and Peck, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

There is no bill of exceptions properly before this court, nor was there one properly before the Court of Appeals. Under our recent decisions, however, the petition fails to allege a defect in the sidewalk of such a substantial nature as to justify the imposing of liability on the defendant city. Gallagher v. City of Toledo, 168 Ohio St., 508, 156 N. E. (2d), 466; Buckley v. City of Portsmouth, 168 Ohio St., 513, 156 N. E. (2d), 468. The record does not show a request* for leave to amend the petition.

One of defendant’s assignments of error in the Court of Appeals, and also in this court, is that the trial court erred in overruling the motion of defendant for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. On the record before the court, that motion should have been sustained.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and final judgment is rendered for defendant.

Judgment reversed,.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Taet, Matthias, Bell, Herbert and Peck, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 Ohio St. (N.S.) 373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kindle-v-city-of-akron-ohio-1959.