Habel v. Longenecker
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Ross, J.,
This is a trespass action involving an intersection collision between automobiles owned and operated by the parties. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff and after defendant’s motion for judgment n.o.v. was refused, she took this appeal.
We shall examine the testimony, as we must on a motion for judgment n.o.v., in the light most advantageous to the plaintiff. He must be given the benefit of every fact and every reasonable inference of fact arising therefrom and any conflict in the evidence must be resolved in his favor. McDonald v. Ferrebee, 366 Pa. 543, 79 A. 2d…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Jinks v. CurrieSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
- McDonald v. FerrebeeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
- Mogren Et Ux. v. GadonasSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
- Alcaro v. Jean Jordeau, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1943
- Fisher v. HillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Koehler v. SchwartzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1955
- Klatt v. DanielsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
- Coventry v. KeithSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
- Coventry v. KeithSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1954