Legal Opinion

Falgiatore v. Falgiatore

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 27, 1954No. Appeal, 92PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Arnold,

In this action of assumpsit the court below entered judgment on the verdict of the jury in favor of the de fendant. The plaintiff appeals from the refusal of his motions for judgment non obstante veredicto and for a new trial.

The plaintiff presented no point for binding instructions and, therefore, a judgment n.o.v. cannot be entered, nor can the want of a timely presentation of a point for such instructions be later supplied nunc pro tunc: Essex Packers Limited v. Kisecker, 373 Pa. 351, 356, 357, 95 A. 2d 544.

Nor is the plaintiff entitled to a new trial, for a…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Warren Tank Car Co. v. DodsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  2. Meholiff v. River Transit CompanySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
  3. Sulzner v. Cappeau-Lemley & Miller Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
  4. Fountain v. BighamSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
  5. Essex Packers Limited v. KiseckerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1953

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Germantown Manufacturing Co. v. RawlinsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  2. Lombardo v. Gasparini Excavating Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
  3. Rubenstein v. RubensteinSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1956
  4. Smith v. LenchnerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
  5. Crown v. ColeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1967

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