Legal Opinion

Goertel v. Muth

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 10, 1984No. 1002PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CERCONE, Judge:

Appellants contend that the jury’s verdict was not so ambiguous and unclear that a new trial was warranted. 1 We agree, and, accordingly reverse the order of the lower court and remand for judgment to be entered on appellants’ behalf.

This case arose from a vehicular intersection accident in Easton, Pennsylvania, on April 29, 1978. Plaintiff-appellee William M. Goertel and Donald E. Goertel filed an action in trespass against defendants-appellants Jeff Muth and Tom-mi Sue Muth for personal injuries which William M. Goertel sustained. William M. Goertel and Tommi Sue Muth were…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Anstine v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
  2. Ason v. LeonhartSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1960
  3. Hornak v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1969
  4. Hilbert v. KatzSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  5. Rusidoff v. DeBolt Transfer, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1977

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Fillmore v. HillSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  2. Chiaverini v. Sewickley Valley HospitalSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  3. James v. NolanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  4. Rogers, G. v. Thomas, L.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2021
  5. Thomas v. Duquesne Light Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988

1 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