Legal Opinion

Kolich v. Monongahela Railway Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 17, 1931No. Appeal, 19PublishedCited by 37 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Simpson,

Defendant appeals from a judgment for plaintiff, and assigns as error (1) the refusal of the trial judge to give binding instructions in its favor, and (2) the action of the court in banc (one judge dissenting) in dismissing its motion for judgment non obstante veredicto. The verdict for plaintiff, approved by the court below, requires us, in considering these assignments, to ignore such parts of defendant’s testimony as conflict with the evidence supporting plaintiff’s contention. From this standpoint, the essential facts may be briefly stated as follows:

Plaintif…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. AustinSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
  2. Tull v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
  3. Bardis v. Philadelphia & Reading Ry.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
  4. New York & Penna. Co. v. N. Y. Central R. R.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
  5. Rhodes v. Pennsylvania R. R.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929

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

3Cited by37 opinions

  1. Hawk v. Pennsylvania R. R.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  2. Riesberg v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
  3. Buchecker v. Reading Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  4. Baker v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1952
  5. Davies v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1952

32 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