Cleve. Ry. Co. v. Krofta

1 Citing case

  1. Frey v. Q.C. Paper Co.

    79 Ohio App. 64 (Ohio Ct. App. 1946)   Cited 13 times
    In Frey, the issue of "owner versus occupant" was not in dispute, but the court did make reference to occupation of a home as opposed to ownership.

    The rule well recognized is that upon motion to direct a verdict, which is analogous to the demurrer in this case, the evidence must be given the most favorable interpretation in behalf of plaintiff and will not support a judgment against him unless he has failed to provide evidence tending to establish an essential element of his case and failed to prove any fact from which a reasonable inference tending to prove that element may be drawn. Pope, Admx., v. Mudge, 108 Ohio St. 192, 140 N.E. 501; Babbitt v. Say, Admr., 120 Ohio St. 177, 165 N.E. 721; Cleveland Ry. Co. v. Krofta, 125 Ohio St. 126, 180 N.E. 641; Martin, Jr., v. Heintz, 126 Ohio St. 227, 184 N.E. 852. The judgment entry recites that the court finds: