Legal Opinion

Menyo v. Sphar

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 26, 1962No. Appeals, 67, 68 and 69PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Bell,

This is a trespass action for personal injuries to a minor plaintiff, Richard Menyo, brought by his mother and. father as parents and guardians, and in their own right. He claimed to have suffered the injuries to his leg and back when he was struck by a motor vehicle operated by the defendant-appellee, Catherine Sphar.. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant, and plaintiff’s motion for a new trial was dismissed by the court en banc. Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment which was entered on the verdict. *

On May 12, 1958, at approximately 7:00 o’clock…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Bohner v. Eastern Express, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1961
  2. Segriff v. JohnstonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1960
  3. Simpson v. Pennsylvania Turnpike CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
  4. F. C. Haab Co. v. Peltz Street Terminals, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
  5. Hazle Township Supervisors' AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1962

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Zeman v. Canonsburg BoroughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
  2. Izzi v. Philadelphia Transportation Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  3. Matsko v. HARLEY DAVIDSON MOT. CO., INC.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  4. DeMichiei v. HolfelderSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  5. Lynch v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966

7 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