Legal Opinion · Dissent

McAdoo v. Autenreith's Dollar Stores

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 15, 1954No. Appeal, 60Published

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion by

Mr. Justice Musmanno:

Without intending any disrespect I cannot help feeling that the description of the mechanical devices involved in this case, as given in the Majority Opinion, sounds like the description of a complicated invention in a Rube Goldberg cartoon, to wit: “The Bommer type hinge is equipped with two spring barrels one of which is on either side of the door. The barrel springs are adjusted to equalize their tension so that the door stays on the transverse center line of the doorway when in its normal closed position. When the door is pushed open the motion…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Jerominski v. Fowler, Dick & WalkerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
  2. MacK v. Reading CompanySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
  3. Bradley v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
  4. White v. Board of EducationAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1937
  5. House v. SchreiberSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1951

1 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