Legal Opinion

Repyneck v. Tarantino

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 1, 1964No. Appeal, 164PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Bell,

This is an appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of nonsuit entered in favor of each of the defendants.

Plaintiff was an employee of Posh Construction, Inc., which had entered into a contract with Tarantino to move a cemetery monument to his property. Plaintiff suffered serious injuries when, in the course of his employment, he touched the cab of a large power crane, whose boom had come in contact with overhead high voltage electrical wires. Plaintiff brought suit against (1) Engler, who was his fellow employee and the operator of the crane, and (2) Posh, as a…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Flagiello v. CrillySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  2. Schofield v. KingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
  3. Stimac v. BarkeySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1961
  4. Borzik v. MillerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1960
  5. Kopp v. R. S. Noonan, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956

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

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. Carrender v. FittererSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  2. Atkins v. Urban Redevelopment AuthoritySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  3. Colloi v. Philadelphia Electric Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  4. APPLE v. ReichertSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
  5. Palenscar v. Michael J. Bobb, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970

25 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