Legal Opinion

Martin Et Ux. v. Steen

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 15, 1932No. Appeal 349 and 350PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Parker, J.,

David J. Martin and Emma M. Martin, his wife, brought this action in trespass against J. Parke Steen, a contractor, the Conestoga Transportation Company, a street railway company, and the City of Lancaster to recover damages alleged to have been suffered by the wife by reason of falling into a hole in a street in the City of Lancaster as she was about to board a car of the street railway company. The case proceeded to trial, and at the conclusion of plaintiffs’ testimony, a nonsuit was entered as to all three defendants. The court subsequently refused a motion to take off…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Perret Et Ux. v. GeorgeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
  2. Stokes v. Township of RalphoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
  3. McCollum v. Pittsburg Railways Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
  4. Gable v. Yellow Cab Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
  5. Gerlach Et Ux. v. City of Phila.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1931

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Carroll v. PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  2. Joshmer v. Fred Weber Contractors, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1956
  3. Barth Et Vir v. KlinckSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
  4. Calhoon v. Pittsburgh Coal Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  5. Murtha Et Ux. v. Phila.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937

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

Powered by the Exa API