Legal Opinion

Henery v. Shadle

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 11, 1995PublishedCited by 49 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

McEWEN, Judge:

This appeal has been taken from the judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of appellee in this action for damages for personal injuries allegedly arising from a motor vehicle accident. Appellants, Charles Henery and Elizabeth Henery, contend that they are entitled to a new trial by reason of the jury’s failure to award any damages for the injuries sustained by Charles Henery when a vehicle operated by Dale Shadle collided with the vehicle driven by appellant, Charles Henery. We are not persuaded that reversible error occurred and, therefore, affirm.

Appellants have presented…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Lewis v. Coffing Hoist Div., Duff-NortonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  2. Daset Mining Corp. v. Industrial Fuels Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  3. Boggavarapu v. PonistSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  4. Martin v. SoblotneySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  5. Majdic v. Cincinnati MacHine Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988

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

3Cited by49 opinions

  1. Gorski v. SmithSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  2. Davis v. MullenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  3. Criswell v. KingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  4. Andrews v. JacksonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  5. Brinich v. JenckaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2000

44 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