Legal Opinion

Duke & Co. v. Anderson

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 13, 1980No. 985PublishedCited by 47 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SPAETH, Judge:

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to remove a compulsory nonsuit.

A nonsuit is proper only if the jury, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and then giving the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable infer enees arising from that evidence, could not reasonably conclude that the elements of the cause of action had been established. Watkins v. Sharon Aerie No. 327 F. O. E., 423 Pa. 396, 223 A.2d 742 (1966); Herman v. Horst, 255 Pa.Super. 232, 234, 386 A.2d 594, 595 (1978). Viewed in this light, the evidence may be stated as…

2Cases cited35 opinions

  1. Binder v. Triangle Publications, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
  2. Christy v. SalitermanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1970
  3. Reese v. DanforthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  4. Baker v. BealSupreme Court of Iowa · 1975
  5. Lawall v. GromanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897

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

3Cited by47 opinions

  1. Guy v. LiederbachSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  2. Rizzo v. HainesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  3. Gorski v. SmithSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  4. Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. FerrettiSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  5. Storm v. GoldenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988

42 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