Legal Opinion

Cameron, to Use v. Eynon

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 29, 1938No. Appeal, 427PublishedCited by 51 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Me. Justice Steen,

This is an appeal from the overruling of defendant’s motion for judgment n. o. v. There was no application by him for a new trial, but the record is so unsatisfactory, and evidences such misconception by the parties of the substantive and procedural law properly applicable to the situation, that in our opinion it is necessary that the case be re-tried so that its structure may be rebuilt from the foundations.

All the evidence at the trial was given by plaintiff and according to his testimony the facts were as follows: Plaintiff for years conducted in Scranton a…

2Cited by51 opinions

  1. Schott v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1969
  2. Brownell Combs, Ii, Administrator C.T.A. Of the Estate of Leslie Combs, Ii, Deceased v. International Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2004
  3. Ingrassia Const. Co., Inc. v. WalshSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  4. Liss & Marion, P.C. v. Recordex Acquisition Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
  5. Stephan v. Waldron Electric Heating & Cooling LLCSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2014

46 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