Legal Opinion

Kralik v. Cromwell

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 11, 1969No. Appeal, 11PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Eagen,

In this trespass action arising out of an automobile collision, the jury returned a verdict for the defend ant. The court en banc below granted a new trial merely stating in its order “that the interests of justice require” it.

The grant of a new trial lies within the inherent power of a trial court, and on appeal we will not interfere with the exercise thereof, unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion or an error of law which necessarily controlled the grant of the new trial. Getz v. Balliet, 431 Pa. 441, 246 A. 2d 108 (1968). Moreover, as we stated in…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Bellettiere v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  2. Clewell v. PummerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
  3. Simrell Et Ux. v. EschenbachSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  4. Beal v. Reading Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1952
  5. Stark v. Fullerton Trucking Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935

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

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. Harman Ex Rel. Harman v. BorahSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  2. Coker v. SM Flickinger Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
  3. SMALICH v. WestfallSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
  4. Scaife Co. v. Rockwell-Standard Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
  5. McCay v. Philadelphia Electric Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1972

25 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