McCune v. Larkin
Citations
- 26 Ohio C.C. Dec. 357
- 25 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 118
Syllabus
<p>EVIDENCE — PEDIGREE.</p> <p>1. Finding as to Pedigree not Disturbed if Elimination of ail Branches Originating in Given Country Required.</p> <p>A reviewing court will not disturb a finding of fact as to pedigree, where to have made a different finding would have required the elimination of all the members of all the branches of a family originating in a foreign land.</p> <p>2. Finding as to Pedigree not Reversed for Hearsay Evidence Admitted or Jury Trial Refused in Partition Suit.</p> <p>Nor will the finding with reference to pedigree be disturbed because of the introduction of hearsay evidence, or refusal of a demand for trial by jury where the action was in the form of a suit in partition.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- concluding that a \shifting public use\ doctrine could not apply because of discontinuity of use of the easement by State between 1975 and 1985
- concluding that a “shifting public use” doctrine could not apply because of discontinuity of use of the easement by State between 1975 and 1985
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Gorman, Jones
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.