Legal Opinion

Kratt v. Horrow

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 10, 1996No. 03399PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

POPOVICH, Judge.

We affirm the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County removing a compulsory nonsuit entered in favor of the defendant/appellant, J. March Maquilan, M.D.

A motion for compulsory nonsuit allows a defendant to test the sufficiency of a plaintiffs evidence. Francioni v. Gibsonia Truck Corp., 472 Pa. 362, 372 A.2d 736 (1977). A compulsory nonsuit can only be granted in cases where it is clear that a cause of action has not been established and the plaintiff must be given the benefit of all favorable evidence along with all reasonable inferences of fact arising from…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Hamil v. BashlineSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  2. Atlantic Richfield Co. v. RazumicSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  3. Mitzelfelt v. KamrinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  4. Francioni v. Gibsonia Truck Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  5. Storm v. GoldenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Shannon v. McNultySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  2. Joyce v. Boulevard Physical Therapy & Rehabilitation Center, P.C.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  3. Harnish v. School Dist. of PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  4. Billman v. SaylorSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  5. Cosom v. MarcotteSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2000

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API