Legal Opinion

Dinsel v. Pennsylvania Railroad

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Decided October 5, 1956No. Civ. A. No. 13912PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WALLACE S. GOURLEY, Chief Judge.

In this proceeding under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq., substantial dispute exists between the parties as to the extent and nature of an alleged brain injury suS • tained by the plaintiff.

*884At a most extended pre-trial hearing, plaintiff’s counsel stated that it was •doubtful that he would call the plaintiff to testify in view of his mental condition resulting from the brain injury sustained in the accident. Defendant has requested the court to call the plaintiff as a witness in plaintiff’s case for purpose of cross-examination.…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Grimsley v. BlackSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1913

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Dinsel v. Pennsylvania Railroad CompanyDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1956
  2. Roman Torino v. Texaco, IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1967
  3. Matthew Heckman v. North Penn Comprehensive Health Services and UPMC WellsboroDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2025

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

Powered by the Exa API