Montgomery v. Bazaz-Sehgal
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
CIRILLO, President Judge Emeritus:
¶ 1 John and Marsha Montgomery appeal from a judgment entered in favor of Sehgal, Greater Pittsburgh Impotence Center, and Aliquippa Hospital following a directed verdict in a medical battery2 case. The court removed the case from the jury and entered a directed verdict at the close of the evidence after it found that because the Montgomerys had failed to present expert testimony, they could not, as a matter of law, prove entitlement to any but nominal damages. We reverse and remand.
¶ 2 It is well settled that “[o]nly in a case where the facts are all clear,…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Hamil v. BashlineSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
- Moure v. RaeuchleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
- Mohr v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1905
- Gray v. GrunnagleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
- Shiner v. MoriartySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Montgomery v. Bazaz-SehgalSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
- Gray, D. v. Huntzinger, A.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
- Mills v. City of HarrisburgDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2008
- Bey v. SacksSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
- Dull v. West Manchester Township Police DepartmentDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2009
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.