Legal Opinion

Mazur v. Klewans

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 22, 1950No. Appeal, 138PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Jones,

The question raised on this appeal is as to the sufficiency of the evidence to establish agency between the owner and the driver of the automobile involved in the accident in suit. The plaintiff is the driver’s wife. She recovered a verdict against the owner for damages for injuries suffered by her due to the negligence of her husband in his operation of the automobile whereof the owner was also an occupant. The defendant moved for a new trial and for judgment n. o. v. The learned court below denied both motions; and the judgment from which the defendant appeals…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Rodgers Et Ux. v. SaxtonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  2. Drob v. JaffeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
  3. Reilly v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  4. McMahen v. WhiteSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
  5. Watkins Et Ux. v. Overland M. F. Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. SMALICH v. WestfallSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
  2. Beam v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  3. Myles v. Philadelphia Transp. Co. (Two Cases)Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1951
  4. Commonwealth v. DeSanzo, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lawrence County1966
  5. SMALICH v. WestfallSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970

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

Powered by the Exa API