Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Rose T. O'Flaherty, Respondent, v. Nassau Electric Railroad Company, Appellant, 1899 — 160 N.Y. 672 · caselaw · US
General
Rose T. O'Flaherty, Respondent, v. Nassau Electric Railroad Company, Appellant
160 N.Y. 672·New York Court of Appeals·1899·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Rose T. O’Flaherty, Respondent, v. Nassau Electric Railroad Company, Appellant.
(Submitted October 2, 1899;
decided October 10, 1899.)
Reported below, 34 App. Div. 74.
Motion to prefer an appeal allowed by a judge of the Court of Appeals from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered January 23, 1899, unanimously affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict, and an order denying a motion for a new trial, in an action to recover damages for a personal injury.
The motion was made upon the ground that the appeal is entitled to a preference under subdivision 12, section 791, Code of Civil Procedure (Chap. 355, Laws of 1899).
Thomas E. Pearsall for motion.
[MAJORITY]
No one opposed.
Motion denied, without costs, on decision in Coxhead v. Johnson (160 N. Y. 369).