Legal Opinion

Gillingham v. Patz

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 15, 1968No. Appeals, Nos. 382 and 383PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Eagen,

Donald Fox and Horace W. Gillingham instituted these actions to recover compensation for injuries suffered in an automobile collision. The collision involved an automobile operated by Fox in which Gillingham was a passenger and an automobile operated by the defendant Patz while in the employ and on the business of the defendant, The Torrington Company [hereinafter Torrington]. A jury trial resulted in a verdict in favor of Fox in the amount of $9000 and in favor of Gillingham in the amount of $46,900 against both Patz and Torrington. In the Gillingham action Fox…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Adams v. GardinerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  2. Girard Trust Corn Exchange Bank v. Philadelphia Transportation Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  3. Brandon v. Peoples Natural Gas Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
  4. Grande v. Wooleyhan Transport Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
  5. Greene v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Westerman. v. StoutSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  2. Kresovich v. FitzsimmonsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
  3. Solomon v. BaumCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  4. Leasure v. HellerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1969
  5. Perciavelle v. SmithSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1969

7 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