Weinfeld v. Funk
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial. In its opinion, the court states: “After a careful review of the entire case, we reached the firm conclusion that justice demanded that plaintiff’s motion for a new trial be sustained.” We have uniformly held that under such circumstances we will not review the action of the court below: Reese v. Pittsburgh Rys. Co., 336 Pa. 299, 9 A. 2d 394; Kerr v. Hofer, 341 Pa. 47, 17 A. 2d 886.
The order of the court below is affirmed.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Reese v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
- Kerr Et Ux. v. Hofer (Et Al.)Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
3Cited by14 opinions
- Bellettiere v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
- Commonwealth v. PowellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
- Commonwealth v. DolanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
- Gerber v. Jones (Et Al.)Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
- German, Adr. v. RiddellSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.