Legal Opinion

Palmer v. Sunshine Family Laundry Service Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 24, 1955No. Appeal, No. 226PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

In this trespass action the plaintiff sought damages resulting from the collision of his automobile with a truck of the defendant in the intersection of two streets in Pittsburgh. The verdict of the jury was for the defendant on á specific finding that plaintiff w;as guilty of contributory negligence. Plaintiff’s appeal is from the refusal of a new trial.

There is no merit in plaintiff’s complaint- here made for the first time that he was prejudiced when his case was called for trial late in the afternoon of- February 15, 1954 and he was required to proceed. Thére was still time…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Albert v. Schenley Auto Sales, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
  2. Steele v. FranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
  3. Dandridge v. Exhibitors Service Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1950
  4. Snyder v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1953

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Halpern v. Western Pennsylvania Chemical Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
  2. Penner v. NapolitanoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
  3. Madera v. KesterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1956

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

Powered by the Exa API