Legal Opinion

Gray v. H.C. Duke & Sons, Inc.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 17, 1989No. 2945 and 2946PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HOFFMAN, Judge:

These consolidated appeals are from the judgment entered below in an action for contribution. At appeal No. 2945 Phi 88, H.C. Duke & Sons, Inc. (Duke) contends that the trial court erred in denying its motion for judgment n.o.v. and a new trial on the grounds that the court (1) incorrectly submitted to the jury the question of apportionment of compensatory and punitive damages; (2) allowed a defendant’s expert to testify as to the cause of the accident; and (3) refused to give a binding instruction that defendant Mast Development Company was negligent. At appeal No. 2946 Phi…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Chambers v. MontgomerySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  2. Kirkbride v. Lisbon Contractors, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  3. Geyer v. SteinbronnSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  4. Tyus v. RestaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  5. Berman v. Radnor Rolls, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988

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

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. Harford Mutual Insurance v. MoorheadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  2. Pirozzi v. Penske Olds-Cadillac-GMC, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  3. Cohen v. Albert Einstein Medical CenterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  4. Ludmer v. NernbergSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  5. Montgomery v. South Philadelphia Medical Group, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1995

21 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