Legal Opinion

Scott Et Ux. v. Lindgren

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 17, 1929No. Appeals 286 and 311PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Linn, J.,

This action for damages resulting from a motor-car collision was tried by a judge without a jury. He found for Henry J. Scott in $1,556.46, reimbursement for sums expended as a result of injury to his wife and in repairing his car, and for Mrs. Scott $500 for personal injuries. Defendant appeals from the judgments entered accordingly. The statement of questions involved specifies but three points for review, — two re-' lating to damage, the third to evidence concerning the extent of Mrs. Scott’s injury.

The statement of claim specified many items of “work, material and…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. King Et Al., Appellants, v. BrillhartSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
  2. Krumrine v. GrenobleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
  3. Koenig v. Quaker City Cab Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
  4. Smith, Jr. Et Ux. v. BlafkinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
  5. Kittanning Borough v. Garretts Run Gas Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1908

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. EVANSSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
  2. Cartmel v. WilliamsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
  3. Cockcroft v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  4. Lynch v. Bornot, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
  5. Societa Palmolese Di Protezione E Beneficenza v. MaialeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1940

6 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