Legal Opinion

Glaister v. Eazor Express, Inc.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 18, 1957No. Appeal, 188PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Jones,

The plaintiff appeals from an order granting a new trial in a trespass action, on the defendant’s motion, for the assigned reason that the jury’s verdict was excessive.

As we have so often said, an appellant has a very heavy burden, upon an appeal from the award of a new trial, to show reversible error. “We will not reverse an order awarding a new trial unless a palpable abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge is disclosed or unless an erroneous rule of law, which in the circumstances necessarily controls the outcome of the case, is certified by the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Jones Et Vir v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
  2. Carroll v. PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  3. Decker v. KuleszaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1952
  4. Beal v. Reading Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1952
  5. Marko v. MendelowskiSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Savino Dagnello v. Long Island Rail Road CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1961
  2. Stevenson v. General Motors Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  3. Spangler v. Helm's New York-Pittsburgh Motor ExpressSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
  4. Conklin v. SchillingerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1969
  5. Exner v. GangewereSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959

9 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