O'Herlihy v. . Joline

New York Court of Appeals

O'Herlihy v. . Joline

98 N.E. 1110, 205 N.Y. 548, 1912 N.Y. LEXIS 1280

DecidedApril 2, 1912

StatusPublished

This text of 98 N.E. 1110 (O'Herlihy v. . Joline) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

O'Herlihy v. . Joline, 98 N.E. 1110, 205 N.Y. 548, 1912 N.Y. LEXIS 1280 (N.Y. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide event; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Oh. J., Gray, Vann, Willard Bartlett and Collin, JJ.; Hiscook and Chase, JJ., dissent, on the ground that while plaintiff’s counsel was guilty of misconduct on the trial, which would have justified the Appellate Division in reversing the judgment, they doubt that any error of law was presented which gives this court jurisdiction to reverse.

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

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide event; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Oh. J., Gray, Vann, Willard Bartlett and Collin, JJ.; Hiscook and Chase, JJ., dissent, on the ground that while plaintiff’s counsel was guilty of misconduct on the trial, which would have justified the Appellate Division in reversing the judgment, they doubt that any error of law was presented which gives this court jurisdiction to reverse.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 N.E. 1110, 205 N.Y. 548, 1912 N.Y. LEXIS 1280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oherlihy-v-joline-ny-1912.