Legal Opinion

Nebel v. MAUK

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 9, 1969No. Appeals, 80, 81 and 82PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Cohen,

This trespass action was undertaken to recover damages from the drivers and owners of two automobiles that struck plaintiff as he made a left turn onto a highway. The plaintiff, Nebel, entered the road after waiting for a break in the traffic. Nebel testified that he did not see the defendant Mauk driving in an automobile, owned by the City of Williamsport, because Mauk was then passing a truck. Mauk denies this maneuver or that any truck was there. The automobiles collided and plaintiff was thrown from his car to *317the highway and/or low medial strip. Some time…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Worthington v. OberhuberSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
  2. Brazel v. BuchananSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1961

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Hart v. W.H. Stewart, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  2. Jeter v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  3. Warren v. Mosites Construction Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  4. Dible v. VagleySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  5. SCARBOROUGH BY SCARBOROUGH v. LewisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986

22 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