Legal Opinion

Hartman v. Hyman & Lieberman

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 12, 1926No. Appeal, 222PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Simpson,

In its petition for an appeal to this court, defendants’ counsel strenuously contended that, if our opinion in McIntyre v. Weinert, 195 Pa. 52, had been followed by the Superior Court, it would have entered a judgment non obstante veredicto in his clients’ favor, instead of affirming the judgment for plaintiff; and that a failure to follow it “results in two divergent lines of authority in Pennsylvania with......the consequent necessity for balancing a recent decision of the Superior Court against the law as announced” by us in that case. It was only because…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Briggs v. GarrettSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886
  2. Conroy v. Pittsburgh TimesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1891
  3. Clark v. North American Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
  4. Wallace v. JamesonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
  5. McIntyre v. WeinertSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900

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

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Matson v. MargiottiSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1952
  2. Banas v. Matthews International Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  3. American Future Systems, Inc. v. Better Business BureauSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  4. Hepps v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  5. Baird v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971

22 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