Legal Opinion

Condel v. Savo

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 25, 1944No. Appeal, 2PublishedCited by 48 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by *

Mr. Justice Hughes,

The court below entered judgment for the defendants for want of a sufficient statement of claim in an action of trespass brought by the plaintiffs against Frank Savo and Mary Savo, the parents of Julius Savo, a minor, for injuries inflicted by him upon Robert Condel, the minor child of the plaintiff, John Condel. The statement of claim avers that Julius Savo lived with his parents and at all times “had a vicious, malignant disposition, and had the habit of mauling, pummelling, assaulting and mistreating smaller children when playing on the streets or in…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Milwaukee & Saint Paul Railway Co. v. KelloggSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
  2. Hoag v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1877
  3. S. S. Pass Ry. Co. v. TrichSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1887
  4. Troop v. Franklin Savings & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  5. Norton v. PayneWashington Supreme Court · 1929

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

3Cited by48 opinions

  1. Kuhns v. BruggerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
  2. K.H. v. J.R.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  3. Byers v. WardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  4. Ellis v. D'AngeloCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
  5. K.H. v. J.R.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003

43 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