Legal Opinion

DiGriannantonio v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 1, 1960No. Appeals, 135, 136, 137 and 138PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Cohen,

Plaintiffs sued to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained as a result of the defendant’s negligence. At the conclusion of plaintiffs’ *29case, the trial judge entered a compulsory nonsuit which the court en banc subsequently refused to remove. From the judgments entered the plaintiffs have appealed and the sole question involved is whether the evidence adduced by plaintiffs was sufficient to create an issue of fact as to whether their injuries were due to defendant’s negligence.

This action arose as a result of a collision which occurred…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Roche v. Pennsylvania RailroadSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  2. Smith v. FlannerySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
  3. Dunmore v. McMillanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
  4. Hinton v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
  5. Scerca v. Philadelphia Transportation Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1945

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Hader v. Coplay Cement Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  2. Bohner v. Eastern Express, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1961
  3. Peair v. Home Ass'n of Enola Legion No. 751Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  4. Celender v. Allegheny County Sanitary AuthoritySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
  5. Davies v. McDowell National BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1962

18 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