Legal Opinion
Kelly v. Hanscom Bros.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Decided December 11, 1974No. Appeals, Nos. 145 and 146PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Cercone, J.,
This appeal arises from the lower court’s granting of a motion for a directed verdict in favor of third party defendant, Ponnock & Sons, on the claim raised in the third party complaint of Hanscom Bros., Inc. Hanscom Bros, asserts that the directed verdict was erroneously granted and that it, therefore, is entitled to a new trial. We agree and will reverse and remand for a new trial.
The facts giving rise to the claim set forth in Hans-com’s third party complaint are not in dispute. Hans-com Bros, is a Philadelphia retail variety store which did business with Ponnock &…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Globe Refining Co. v. Landa Cotton Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1903
- Kassab v. SoyaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
- Salvador v. Atlantic Steel Boiler Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
- Keystone Diesel E. Co., Inc. v. IrwinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
- Wolstenholme, Inc. v. Jos. Randall Bro., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Good v. AB Chance Co.Colorado Court of Appeals · 1977
- Frank B. Bozzo, Inc. v. Electric Weld DivisionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
- Kunststoffwerk Alfred Huber, Alfred Ziegler, Substituted v. R. J. Dick, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1980
- Rael v. F & S CO., INC.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 1980
- Adkinson v. International Harvester Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1992
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.