Legal Opinion

Mull v. Bothwell

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 20, 1940No. Appeal, 6PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Schaffer,

This is a close case. The learned judge of the court below who tried it, and wrote the opinion of the court in banc refusing judgment for defendant non obstante veredicto and entering judgment on the verdict for $10,500 in plaintiff’s favor, on the trial, by his ruling and charge, and in his opinion, has given the evidence and the law most careful study and analysis.

The jury having found for plaintiff, the evidence and the logical legal inferences which arise from it must be viewed in a light favorable to her as we are asked to enter judgment against her.…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Lithgow v. LithgowSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  2. Ferry v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
  3. Hunter v. PopeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  4. Ross v. RiffleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  5. Schaeffer v. Reading Transit Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Lear v. Shirk's Motor Express Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
  2. Liguori v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
  3. Stanalonis v. Branch Motor Express Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
  4. Cunningham v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
  5. Ramos Robles v. RosarioSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1947

8 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