Mahoning Valley Ry. Co. v. Feeney

Ohio Supreme Court

Mahoning Valley Ry. Co. v. Feeney

86 Ohio St. (N.S.) 359

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 11, 1912

DocketNo. 12590

StatusPublished

This text of 86 Ohio St. (N.S.) 359 (Mahoning Valley Ry. Co. v. Feeney) 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

Mahoning Valley Ry. Co. v. Feeney, 86 Ohio St. (N.S.) 359 (Ohio 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment reversed and common pleas affirmed. Grounds stated in journal entry.

It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of said circuit court be, and the same hereby is, reversed for error in reversing and in not affirming the judgment of the court of common pleas of Mahoning county in the case of Marie Feeney v. The Mahoning Valley Railway Company. And proceeding to render the judgment said circuit court should have rendered,

It is considered and adjudged that the said judgment of the court of common pleas be and the same is in all respects affirmed, this court being of opinion that the plaintiff’s own evidence clearly shows that her own negligence contributed directly and proximately to her injuries.

Davis, C. J., Shauck, Johnson and O’Hara, JJ., concur. Donahue, J., not participating.

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

Judgment reversed and common pleas affirmed. Grounds stated in journal entry.

It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of said circuit court be, and the same hereby is, reversed for error in reversing and in not affirming the judgment of the court of common pleas of Mahoning county in the case of Marie Feeney v. The Mahoning Valley Railway Company. And proceeding to render the judgment said circuit court should have rendered,

It is considered and adjudged that the said judgment of the court of common pleas be and the same is in all respects affirmed, this court being of opinion that the plaintiff’s own evidence clearly shows that her own negligence contributed directly and proximately to her injuries.

Davis, C. J., Shauck, Johnson and O’Hara, JJ., concur. Donahue, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 Ohio St. (N.S.) 359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mahoning-valley-ry-co-v-feeney-ohio-1912.