Legal Opinion
Matonti v. Research-Cottrell, Inc.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided January 31, 1962No. Civ. A. No. 24798PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LUONGO, District Judge.
Before the Court are defendant’s post trial motions for judgment on the whole record, for judgment n. o. v. and for a new trial. These motions stem from a civil action instituted by the plaintiff, Michael Matonti, to recover damages for personal injuries which he alleges were negligently caused by defendant, Research-Cottrell, Inc. Jurisdiction is based on diversity, plaintiff being a citizen of Pennsylvania and defendant a New Jersey corporation.
This case was tried to the Court and a jury, and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of Two Hundred Ten…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Standard Oil Co. v. AndersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1909
- McConnell v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
- Mature v. AngeloSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
- Siidekum v. Animal Rescue League of PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
- Tarr v. Hecla Coal & Coke Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Milton Mazer, Administrator of the Estate of Israel Abrams, Deceased v. Hattie Lipschutz, of the Estate of Benjamin Lipschutz, Deceased, Milton Mazer, Administrator of the Estate of Israel Abrams, Deceased v. Dr. Peter Chodoff, and Third-Party v. Hattie Lipschutz, of the Estate of Benjamin Lipschutz, Deceased, and the Albert Einstein Medical Center, Southern Division, Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1964
- Mauk v. WrightDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1973
- Kelly v. Eclipse Motor LineDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1969
- Branan v. Union Carbide Corp., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Armstrong County1980
- Mazer v. LipschutzCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1963