Legal Opinion

March v. Philadelphia & West Chester Traction Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 12, 1926No. Appeal, 92PublishedCited by 65 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Simpson,

In an action of trespass for negligence, plaintiff recovered a verdict, defendant moved for judgment non obstante veredicto, the court below dismissed the motion and granted a new trial, whereupon defendant took this appeal, assigning the discharge of its motion as error. Its right to appeal admittedly depends on the Act of April 9, 1925, P. L. 221, and our preliminary questions are, therefore: What is the meaning of the statute, and what rules should be applied in deciding appeals under it? We have repeatedly said, and it is especially applicable in the instant…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Class & Nachod Brewing Co. v. GiacobelloSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
  2. Kates's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
  3. Clarkson v. CrawfordSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
  4. Jessup & Moore Paper Co. v. Bryant Paper Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
  5. Merrick v. DupontSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by65 opinions

  1. Cone v. West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. Corabi v. Curtis Publishing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
  3. Bellettiere v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  4. Armbruster v. HorowitzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  5. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc. v. SealySupreme Court of Alabama · 1979

60 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API