Legal Opinion

McMeekin v. Gimbel Brothers, Inc.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Decided November 19, 1963No. Civ. A. 60-766PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MARSH, District Judge.

At the close of the plaintiffs’ evidence in this diversity case, the court granted defendant’s motion for a directed verdict, specifying as grounds therefor: (1) Insufficient evidence of causation, (2) failure to prove negligence, and (3) failure to prove a breach of warranty. Rule 50, Fed.R.Civ.P. Plaintiffs timely moved for a new trial. Rule 59, Fed.R.Civ.P. We think the motion should be denied.

Insufficient Evidence

At trial it was proved that an Eska rotary-type lawnmower, manufactured by The Eska Corporation, an Iowa corporation, was purchased by the plaintiff, John…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Ebbert v. Philadelphia Electric Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  2. Muslera v. Patton Clay Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
  3. Knapp v. Willys-Ardmore, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
  4. Roche v. Pennsylvania RailroadSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  5. Thomas v. RibbleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1961

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. And Cosmair, Inc. v. Edd Pruitt and Marjorie Ann PruittCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1968
  2. Myers v. Montgomery Ward & Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1969
  3. American Optical Co. v. WeidenhamerIndiana Supreme Court · 1983
  4. Sessa v. RiegleDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1977
  5. Lockett v. General Electric CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1974

9 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