Torts · MBE-tested
Rose M. O'Neil, Respondent, v. Metropolitan Street Railway Company, Appellant
185 N.Y. 599·New York Court of Appeals·1906·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 M. O’Neil, Respondent, v. Metropolitan Street Railway Company, Appellant.
O’Nell v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 103 App. Div. 607, affirmed
(Argued May 25, 1906;
decided June 19, 1906.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered May 16, 1905, 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 for personal injuries. alleged to have been sustained through the negligence of the defendant.
Charles F. Brown, Bayard Id. Ames and Henry A. Robinson for appellant.
George H Hart for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Werner and Hiscock, J J. Not sitting: Gray, J.. Absent: O’Brien, J.