Legal Opinion

Kuntz v. Pittsburgh

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 24, 1936No. Appeals, 135 and 136PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Parker, J.,

The plaintiffs, husband and wife, have judgments against the City of Pittsburgh on account of injuries suffered by the wife as a result of a fall on a sidewalk. The city has taken appeals from the judgments entered and now insists that the court below erred in refusing its motions for binding instructions and for judgment n. o. v.

Since the plaintiffs have verdicts in their favor we will refer to the testimony in the light most favorable to them, giving them the benefit of every inference of fact which may reasonably be deduced from the evidence, as we are required to do.…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Nanty-Glo Boro. v. American Surety Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  2. Reel v. ElderSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1869
  3. Lerner v. City of PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
  4. Chapman v. ClothierSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  5. King v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1878

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Peair v. Home Ass'n of Enola Legion No. 751Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  2. City of Phoenix v. WeedonArizona Supreme Court · 1950
  3. Dillow v. City of YumaArizona Supreme Court · 1940
  4. Emmey v. Stanley Co. of AmericaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  5. Henn v. PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941

12 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