Legal Opinion

Haverkamp v. Sussman

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 3, 1934No. Appeal, 284PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

This appeal is from refusal by the court below of defendant’s motion for judgment n. o. v. and the discharge of a rule for a new trial, in an action of trespass to recover damages for the death of Charles A. Haverkamp, husband of Edith A. Haverkamp, due to injuries received when the automobile in which he was riding came into collision with a lumber truck belonging to defendant. At the time of the accident, deceased was riding as a guest in a car owned and operated by Wesley Hav-erkamp, his son. The day was clear and the roadway dry. The only witness for plaintiff was one H. L.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Parker v. Matheson Motor Car Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
  2. Hegarty v. BergerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  3. Danko v. Pittsburg Railways Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Ingram v. PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
  2. William J. Bell and Margaret Bell v. Alexander Mykytiuk. William J. BellCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1957
  3. Jones v. Karis Et Ux.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
  4. McCuen v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
  5. Reiff v. Boland, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1935

1 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