Moodie v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
Per Curiam,
■' The question of the defendant’s negligence is indeed a close one. But, a majority of the members of the court who heard the argument of this appeal are of the opinion that the case could not properly have been taken from the jury. Consequently, the learned court below was correct in refusing the defendant’s motion for judgment n.o.v. The judgment for the plaintiff is affirmed on the opinion of Judge Guerin for the court en banc.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by45 opinions
- Kuisis v. Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
- Miller v. Brass Rail Tavern, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
- Commonwealth v. HenrySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
- Commonwealth v. GonzalezSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
- Ragan v. SteenSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.