Legal Opinion

Fidelity Bank v. Tiernan

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 29, 1977No. 1930PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SPAETH, Judge:

Four members of the court are in agreement that the judgment of the lower court cannot stand. The President Judge and I would enter judgment n.o.v. Judge HOFFMAN and Judge CERCONE, however, would only grant a new trial; they do not find it necessary to decide the issue that the President Judge and I regard as dispositive. In these circumstances, so that there may be an order supported by a majority of the court the President Judge and I concur in the granting of a new trial. The reasons for a new trial are stated in Judge HOFFMAN’s opinion; the reasons for judgment n.o.v., in…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Perry v. PayneSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
  2. Dilks v. Flohr ChevroletSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  3. Employers Liability Assurance Corp. v. Greenville Business Men's Ass'nSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
  4. Galligan v. ArovitchSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
  5. KOTWASINSKI v. RASNERSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1969

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Fidelity Leasing Corp. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1980
  2. Richard's 5 & 10, Inc. v. Brooks Harvey Realty InvestorsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  3. Bachman & Miller v. High Construction Inc., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster County1991
  4. Fidelity Bank v. TiernanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1977

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

Powered by the Exa API