Legal Opinion

Kuneck v. Conti

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 7, 1923No. Appeal, No. 306PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Sadler,

Ridge Avenue, in the City of Philadelphia, running approximately north and south, and having a clearance of 34 feet between curbs, intersects the Wissahickon Drive, which is 100 feet in width. In the center of the latter an officer is stationed, who regulates the congested traffic. At the time of the collision which gave rise to this suit, east- and west-bound vehicles had been stopped by *457proper signal, and those desiring to proceed at right angles were ordered to move. Kuneck, the plaintiff, started on his motorcycle from the south on Eidge Avenue, keeping to the…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Lessig v. Reading Transit & Light Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
  2. Weber v. GreenebaumSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
  3. Hill v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
  4. Piper v. Adams Express Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
  5. Mehler v. DoyleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Silfies v. American Stores Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
  2. Richards Et Ux. v. Warner Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  3. Reidinger v. Lewis Jones, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
  4. Cortright v. American Ice Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1926

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API