Legal Opinion

Murray v. Siegal

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 3, 1963No. Appeal, NO. 158PublishedCited by 53 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Eagen,

This is a personal injury action wherein the court en banc below sustained the action of the trial court’s entry of a compulsory nonsuit. On appeal, the plaintiff questions the correctness of the judgment of non-suit and certain rulings by the trial court rejecting proffered evidence.

In assessing the propriety of the entry of the non-suit, certain fundamental legal principles must be kept in mind, namely, that such a judgment should be entered only in a clear case, and further, in reviewing the record, we must read the testimony in the light most favorable to the…

2Cases cited32 opinions

  1. Lanni v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1952
  2. Flagiello v. CrillySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  3. Rinaldi v. LevineSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
  4. Paxos v. Jarka CorporationSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  5. Howarth v. Adams Express Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921

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

3Cited by53 opinions

  1. Collins v. HandSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
  2. Bolus v. United Penn BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  3. Commonwealth v. ThomasSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
  4. Commonwealth v. DanielsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  5. Commonwealth v. SilverSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982

48 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