Legal Opinion

Pinto v. Bell Fruit Co., Inc.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 15, 1941No. Appeals, 240 and 241PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

'Opinion by

Rhodes, J.,

Plaintiff brought this action in trespass to recover damages for injuries sustained when he was struck by an automobile belonging to the Bell Fruit Company, Inc,, and operated by Samuel Zeitz, while crossing Dock Street in the City of Philadelphia. No affidavit of defense was filed by either defendant. The ownership of th.e truck and the agency of the operator were admitted. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff against both defendants. Defendants’ motion for judgment n.o.v. was overruled, and judgment was entered on the verdict. These appeals by defendants followed.

T…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Wood, AppellantSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
  2. Sorrentino v. GrazianoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
  3. Robb v. Quaker City Cab Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
  4. Weaver v. PickeringSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
  5. Fearn v. City of PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Weismiller Et Vir. v. FarrellSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1943
  2. Lawton v. DeAngeloSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  3. Valentine v. Philadelphia Transportation Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1950
  4. Balzer v. Reith Et Ux.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
  5. Ross Et Vir. v. Pgh. Motor Coach Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1944

7 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