Carl v. Matzko
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
Pee Cubiam,
This was an action in trespass against two physi: cians, M. J. Matzko and F. B. Clemens, for alleged medical malpractice. The jury returned a verdict against both defendants. Each defendant filed motions for judgment n.o.v. The court below entered the following order. “And Now, to wit, this 6th day of June, 1967, the motion for judgment n.o.v. on behalf of Dr. F. B. Clemens, Defendant, is hereby granted, and the motion for judgment n.o.v. on behalf of Dr. M. J. Matzko, Defendant, is hereby denied. Exception noted.” Defendant M. J. Matzko appealed to this court from the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Simpson v. Pennsylvania Turnpike CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
- Denmon v. RhodesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
- Bodick v. Harcliff Mining Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
- Kersey Manufacturing Co. v. RozicSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
- Marvin Vending Corp. v. BieberSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
3Cited by1 opinion
- Davanzo v. FinelliSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1981