Harmon v. Comstock Horse & Cattle Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “[Hearsay statements are] not made competent by commitment to writing in an official report, since it remains evidence not subject to cross-examination and not based on first-hand knowledge.”
• “[T]he court is to direct a verdict where * * * some crucial link in the evidence is missing.”
• “Suggestion of other causes is limited only by the limits of human imagination, and are not a basis for taking a case from the jury.”
• “Defendants suggested that other causes of the fire were possible, such as spontaneous combustion, arson, or sparks from a loco motive. However, all these possible causes were questions of fact for the jury[.]”
• interpreting R.C. 2317.42, the statutory predecessor to Evid.R. 803(8)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).