Zimanski v. Curro & Whittaker Co.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Zimanski v. Curro & Whittaker Co.

8 Ohio Law. Abs. 19, 1929 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 978

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Zimanski v. Curro & Whittaker Co.. Read the opinion of the Court — 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 117 →

Ohio Court of Appeals·Decided November 11, 1929·No. No. 9833·Published

Opinion

MAUCK, J.

We now hold that the law of this case was determined by the Court of Appeals in the former hearing in this court and that following the rule in such cases we are bound to reverse the judgment complained of in this proceeding. Cohman vs. City of St. Bernard, 111 OS. 726. We may add that while this judgment is entered pursuant to the rule imposed upon us by the Cohman case, we are none the less of the independent opinion that such a case of negligence had been shown that its submission to the jury was required.

Middleton, P. J. and Houck, J., concur.

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

MAUCK, J.

We now hold that the law of this case was determined by the Court of Appeals in the former hearing in this court and that following the rule in such cases we are bound to reverse the judgment complained of in this proceeding. Cohman vs. City of St. Bernard, 111 OS. 726. We may add that while this judgment is entered pursuant to the rule imposed upon us by the Cohman case, we are none the less of the independent opinion that such a case of negligence had been shown that its submission to the jury was required.

Middleton, P. J. and Houck, J., concur.

Zimanski v. Curro & Whittaker Co., 8 Ohio Law. Abs. 19, 1929 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 978 (Ohio Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

8 Ohio Law. Abs. 19 (Zimanski v. Curro & Whittaker Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related