Legal Opinion
Tindall v. Friedman
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Decided March 24, 2009No. 3390 EDA 2004, 3391 EDA 2004, 3433 EDA 2004, 3494 EDA 2005PublishedCited by 54 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION BY
BOWES, J.:
¶ 1 Dr. Brad S. Friedman, Dr. Mark Schweitzer, and Jefferson Imaging have filed separate appeals from the judgment entered on a jury award in favor of Jeffrey and Silvia Tindall, and the Tindalls have appealed the trial court’s post-trial entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict (“n.o.v”) in favor of Jefferson Imaging. We reverse the entry of judgment n.o.v. in favor of Jefferson Imaging and remand for reinstatement of the judgment against that company. We affirm the jury award in favor of the Tindalls, but remand for recalculation of delay damages imposed on that…
2Cases cited40 opinions
- Standard Venetian Blind Co. v. American Empire InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
- Thompson v. City of PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
- Kravinsky v. GloverSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
- Ferrer v. Trustees of the University of PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
- Krebs v. United Refining Co. of PennsylvaniaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by54 opinions
- Midwest Financial Acceptance Corp. v. LopezSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
- Whitaker v. Frankford HospitalSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
- Ponzini v. PrimeCare Medical, Inc.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2017
- Gillingham v. Consol Energy, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
- Hyrcza v. West Penn Allegheny Health System, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
49 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.