Krouse v. Feldshur
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rhodes, P. J.,
This is an action in trespass for malicious prosecution, which arose out of an unusual set of circumstances. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff. Defendant’s motions for new trial and judgment n. o. v. were refused. From the judgment entered on the verdict defendant has appealed.
There was a conflict in the testimony as to the circumstances under which defendant acted and out of which the prosecution of plaintiff arose. Consequently, there is no merit in defendant’s contention on this appeal that his motion for judgment n. o. v. must he granted on the ground that…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- McCarthy v. De ArmitSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1881
- Simpson v. Montgomery Ward & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1946
- Altman v. Standard Refrig. Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
- Taylor v. American International Shipbuilding Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Curley v. Automobile Finance Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Biggans v. Hajoca Corp. Dash v. Hajoca CorpCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1950
- Neczypor v. JacobsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1958