Legal Opinion

Emery v. Pittsburgh

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 3, 1923No. Appeal, No. 84PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Me. Justice Walling,

This suit by a pedestrian against the City' of Pittsburgh is for damages resulting from an alleged defective sidewalk. La Schall Street extends northerly from Hamilton Avenue as an open public street, but not brought to its established grade nor paved. At the time in question, there was no sidewalk properly so-called on either side of the street, although on the east side next the property line was a flag stone walk some four feet wide, extending southerly to within about seventy-five feet of the avenue, and just on the street side of this walk near its south end…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Lohr v. Philipsburg BoroughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
  2. Burns v. City of BradfordSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1891
  3. Davis v. Shenandoah BoroughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  4. Morris v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
  5. New Castle v. KurtzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. German v. McKeesport City (Et Al.)Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  2. City of Tulsa v. FryeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1933
  3. Good v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  4. Smith v. City of TulsaSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935
  5. City of St. Petersburg v. RoachSupreme Court of Florida · 1941

8 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