Legal Opinion
Sochanski v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided October 22, 1980No. Civ. A. 75-2903PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HANNUM, District Judge.
Presently before the Court is a Motion For Judgment N.O.V. pursuant to Rule 50(b), F.R.Civ.P., filed by defendant, Sears, Roebuck and Company (hereinafter “Sears”). After careful consideration of the issues presented by the defendant’s motion, the Court has determined that the motion will be denied.
Plaintiff, Stanley Sochanski, was injured when a tire he was repairing exploded. The tire was manufactured and then sold by Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (hereinafter “Goodyear”). After being mounted on a wheel which was manufactured and sold by Geneva…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Johnson v. ZerbstSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Builders Supply Co. v. McCabeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
- Hilbert v. RothSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
- Burbage v. Boiler Engineering & Supply Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1969
- Brown v. PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Sochanski v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1982
- Littles v. LiebermanDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1988
- Stanley J. Sochanski, in No. 82-1036 v. Sears, Roebuck and Company, and Cross-Appellant in No. 82-1037. And the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. v. John F. Solomon, Jr., Palmer Tire Company, Geneva Metal Wheels CoCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1982
- Sochanski v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1980
- Stanton v. National Fuel Gas Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Mercer County1987
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.