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.
Eunie L. Whiting, Appellant, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Respondent, 1907 — 189 N.Y. 527 · caselaw · US
Torts · MBE-tested
Eunie L. Whiting, Appellant, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Respondent
189 N.Y. 527·New York Court of Appeals·1907·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
Eunie L. Whiting, Appellant, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Respondent.
Whiting v. N. T. C. & H. B. B. B. Co., 110 App. Div. 916, affirmed.
(Argued June 10, 1907;
decided October 1, 1907.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered January 23, 1906, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by-defendant’s negligence.
John E. O'Brien for appellant.
Robert A. Kutsohbook and Charles C. Paulding for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Haight, Vann, Werner and His-cock, JJ. Dissenting : Edward T. Bartlett, J. Not sitting: Gray, J.