Legal Opinion

Martinez v. Pinkasiewicz

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 26, 1935No. Appeal, 100PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Parker, J.,

The plaintiff has a judgment against the defendant in an action of trespass for damages on account of the death of his son, and the sole assignment of error is to the refusal of the defendant’s motion for judgment n. o. v.

In the case of a motion for judgment n. o. v., the “testimony should not only be read in the light most advantageous to plaintiff, all conflicts therein being resolved in his favor, but he must be given the benefit of every fact and inference of fact pertaining to the issues involved which may reasonably be deduced from the evidence”: Guilinger v. Penna.…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Fitzpatrick v. PenfieldSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
  2. Philadelphia & Reading Railroad v. HummellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1863
  3. Guilinger v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  4. Hydraulic Works Co. v. OrrSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1877
  5. Henderson v. Continental Refining Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1908

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Patterson v. Palley Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
  2. Thompson v. Reading Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
  3. Prokop Et Ux. v. BeckerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
  4. Weimer Et Ux. v. Westm'd Water Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  5. Federated Purchaser, Inc. v. Noti, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lehigh County1974

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API