Legal Opinion

Heisey Et Ux. v. Vansant

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 11, 1936No. Appeals, 407 and 408PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Cunningham, J.,

Plaintiffs below and appellants herein, Naomi R. Heisey and her husband, sued to recover damages resulting from an alleged malicious prosecution of the wife plaintiff by her employer, Hr. Joseph W. Vansant. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Mrs. Heisey in the amount of $2,500, and in favor of her husband for $100, as expenses incurred by him. The court below entered judgment n. o. v. upon the ground that plaintiffs did not produce any evidence from which the jury could properly and reasonably find want of probable cause on the part of the defendant. Plaintiffs…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Altman v. Standard Refrig. Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  2. Groda v. American Stores CompanySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  3. Farneth v. Commercial Credit Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
  4. Randall v. Fenton Storage Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  5. Werner v. BowersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Hugee v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
  2. Wainauskis v. Howard Johnson Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  3. Rushton v. SheaDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1976
  4. Hubert v. Alta Life InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  5. Miller v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1952

2 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