Legal Opinion

Metz v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 3, 1939No. Appeal, 226PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Hirt, J.,

The propriety of the entry of judgment for the defendant non obstante veredicto is the subject of this appeal.

Giving plaintiff the benefit of all favorable .inferences from the testimony, the following facts appear: Plaintiff, a truck driver, on January 20,1937, drove his truck northeasterly on .West Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, loaded with coal, intending to stop at the office of a dealer for instructions as to delivery of the coal. In the neighborhood of the dealer’s .office fie looked for a place to park his truck. Parking was not permitted on either Dormont Avenue or…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Lane v. E. A. Mullen, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
  2. Purol, Inc. v. Great Eastern System, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  3. Williams v. D'AmicoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1922

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Roadman v. BelloneSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
  2. Pegg v. General Motors Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  3. Salvitti v. ThroppeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
  4. Vunak v. WaltersSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
  5. Dodson v. Philadelphia Transportation Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951

3 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