TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Dinsmore v. Kreighbaum

Dinsmore v. Kreighbaum.

Dinsmore v. Kreighbaum, 151 N.E. 436 (Ind. Ct. App. 1926)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Indiana Court of Appeals · State Appellate Courts
Decided
April 22, 1926
Docket
No. 12,481.
Judges
Nichols
Citations
151 N.E. 43685 Ind. App. 1681926 Ind. App. LEXIS 113

Opinion of the Court — Nichols

Nichols, C. J.

Action for seduction by appellant against appellee. There was a trial by jury and a verdict against appellant, on which judgment was rendered, from which this appeal. The error assigned is the action of the court in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial, under which appellant presents that there was error in giving instruction No. 9 tendered by appellee. This instruction calls special attention to appellant as a witness, and to parts of her evidence.in such a way as that she may have been discredited and prejudiced thereby. Appellant has fully briefed the question *169 and makes, in the opinion of this court, a prima facie showing that reversible error was committed. Appellee has failed to file any brief and the court, in its discretion, will treat such failure to file a brief, thereby attempting to aid the court in learning whether or not reversible error in fact was committed, as a confession of error.

Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co.

v. Linder (1925), 195 Ind. 569 , 145 N. E. 885 ;

Goldberg v. Hauer (1924), 81 Ind. App. 23 , 142 N. E. 125 .

Judgment reversed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1929: 21930: 119292026peak 1929 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Bryant v. School Town of Oakland City171 N.E. 378 (Ind. 1930)
  2. Kreighbaum v. Dinsmore165 N.E. 526 (Ind. Ct. App. 1929)
  3. Tate v. Legg162 N.E. 910 (Ind. Ct. App. 1929)

Most recent

  1. Bryant v. School Town of Oakland City171 N.E. 378 (Ind. 1930)
  2. Kreighbaum v. Dinsmore165 N.E. 526 (Ind. Ct. App. 1929)
  3. Tate v. Legg162 N.E. 910 (Ind. Ct. App. 1929)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis R.R. v. Linder, 145 N.E. 885 (Ind. 1925) 17
Goldberg v. Hauer, 142 N.E. 125 (Ind. Ct. App. 1924) 5

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list