Legal Opinion

Montgomery v. Bazaz-Sehgal

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 9, 1999PublishedCited by 25 opinions

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

  1. Hamil v. BashlineSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  2. Moure v. RaeuchleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  3. Mohr v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1905
  4. Gray v. GrunnagleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
  5. Shiner v. MoriartySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1998

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

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Montgomery v. Bazaz-SehgalSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  2. Gray, D. v. Huntzinger, A.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
  3. Mills v. City of HarrisburgDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2008
  4. Bey v. SacksSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  5. Dull v. West Manchester Township Police DepartmentDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2009

20 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