Legal Opinion

Salkind v. Pa. T. F. Mut. Cas. Ins. Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 19, 1939PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

This is an action by the insured employer to recover on a workmen's compensation policy. A verdict was rendered in favor of defendant. Plaintiffs asked for a new trial, alleging errors in the charge of the trial judge, and also for judgment n. o. v. The court in banc sustained the verdict. Plaintiffs appeal. We do not think there is any substantial merit in the objections to the charge of the court but deem it unnecessary to discuss them in detail because, in our opinion, defendant was entitled to a directed verdict in its favor.

The coverage of the policy, which was numbered 30909, is stated…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Swartz v. ConradisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
  2. Byrne v. Henry A. Hitner's Sons Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  3. Robinson v. Atlantic Elevator Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
  4. Bock v. D. B. Frampton & Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  5. Lutz v. State Workmen's Insurance FundSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Giordano v. Clement Martin, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1943
  2. Johnson v. El Dorado Creosoting Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1954
  3. Duskin v. Pennsylvania-Central Airlines CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1948
  4. Nemitz v. Air Services InternationalCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
  5. Moore v. Philadelphia Electric Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1960

4 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