Legal Opinion
Larkin v. May Department Stores
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Decided April 3, 1957No. Civ. A. No. 11668PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WILLSON, District Judge.
On February 6, 1957, plaintiff having completed the presentation of her evidence to a jury, this court granted defendant’s motion for an involuntary dismissal, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41(b), Fed.Rules Civ.Proc., 28 U.S.C.A.
This is a diversity case. The. negligence law of Pennsylvania applies. The court desires to set forth the reasons why the dismissal was entered.
The involuntary dismissal under Rule 41(b) is the equivalent of a directed verdict. Federal Deposit Ins. Corporation v. Mason, 3 Cir., 115 F.2d 548, 551; Whitley v. Powell, 4 Cir., 159 F.2d 625.…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Gunning v. CooleySupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- Eyerly v. BakerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1935
- Jerominski v. Fowler, Dick & WalkerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
- Johnson v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1954
- Federal Deposit Ins. Corporation v. MasonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1940
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Dallas v. F.M. Oxford Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
- Laura Larkin v. The May Department Stores Company, Successors by Consolidation to Kaufmann's Department Stores, Inc., a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1958