Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Kotal v. Goldberg

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 24, 1953No. Appeal, 26Published

1Concurrence

Concussing Opinion by

Mr. Justice Bell :

Appellant raised the question of whether the exclusive control doctrine applies in this case; this important question was not passed upon or decided by the majority opinion. Our decisions in connection with the application or nonapplication of the exclusive control doctrine have caused, unfortunately, much confusion among the Bench and Bar, with a resultant multiplication of litigation. It is therefore important to clarify this question — at least as far as the opinion of one Judge can — because, as the great Chief Justice Coke wisely said “the knowne…

2Cases cited62 opinions

  1. Shafer v. Lacock, Hawthorn & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
  2. Miller v. HickeySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  3. Durning v. HymanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
  4. Knox v. SimmermanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
  5. McDonald v. FerrebeeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951

57 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