McMeekin v. Gimbel Brothers, Inc.
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
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
- Ebbert v. Philadelphia Electric Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
- Muslera v. Patton Clay Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
- Knapp v. Willys-Ardmore, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
- Roche v. Pennsylvania RailroadSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
- Thomas v. RibbleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1961
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. And Cosmair, Inc. v. Edd Pruitt and Marjorie Ann PruittCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1968
- Myers v. Montgomery Ward & Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1969
- American Optical Co. v. WeidenhamerIndiana Supreme Court · 1983
- Sessa v. RiegleDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1977
- Lockett v. General Electric CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1974
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.