Legal Opinion

Ingram v. Pittsburgh

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 1, 1942No. Appeal, 143PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Drew,

This action in trespass was instituted by plaintiff, Joseph Ingram, against defendant, City of Pittsburgh, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident alleged to have been caused by the latter’s negligent maintenance of its street. Two trials were had, the jury disagreed in the first, and found for defendant in the second. Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial having been refused and judgment having been entered on the verdictj this appeal followed.

Plaintiff suffered severe injuries when an. automobile in which he was riding as a…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Freedman v. Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New YorkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
  2. Commonwealth v. RyhalSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  3. Commonwealth v. BoneSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
  4. Commonwealth v. SternSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
  5. Commonwealth v. DinataleSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1928

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. WeitkampSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  2. Hancock v. CrouchMissouri Court of Appeals · 1954
  3. Higgins v. Loup River Public Power DistrictNebraska Supreme Court · 1955
  4. Ganster v. Western Pennsylvania Water Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  5. Oklahoma Department of Public Safety v. RobinsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1973

5 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