Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

413 S.W.2d 78

Sherrard v. Oakley

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Decided March 24, 1967

Court of Appeals of Kentucky · decided 1967-03-24

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently December 2018

3 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Clearly the trial court had no power to cut off defendant's right to present his case, if he so desired, by sustaining a motion of the plaintiffs for a directed verdict at the close of their case.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Jewish Hosp. & St. Mary's Healthcare, Inc. v. House

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1967-03-24

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

HILL, Judge.

¶1This is an appeal from a judgment entered on a directed verdict for defendant at the close of plaintiffs-appellants’ evidence in a malpratice case against defendant-ap-pellee, a dentist.

¶2Only two points are assigned in appellants’ statement of “points on appeal.” The first one has been abandoned, and the second asserts that: “The court erred in not sustaining Plaintiffs’ Motion for Peremptory Instruction for them.” Only a partial record has been designated by appellants and filed in this court. CR 75.04 required the filing of a “concise statement of the points on which” appellants intended to rely on the appeal.

¶3The only question properly raised on this appeal is whether appellants were entitled to a directed verdict at the close of plaintiffs’ evidence. Clearly the trial court had no power to cut off defendant’s right to present his case, if he so desired, by sustaining a motion of the plaintiffs for a directed verdict at the close of their case.

¶4The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.
/413/sw2d/78 · .json · Public domain