Legal Opinion

Zanko v. Semmel

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 8, 1954No. Appeal, 19PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Arnold,

In his lifetime the decedent, Fritsch, instituted this action of trespass for damages for injuries resulting from being run over by the bulldozer owned by one of the defendants, and operated by the other as his employe. Prior to trial he died and appellant-administrator was substituted as plaintiff. Plaintiff appeals from the refusal to take off the compulsory nonsuit entered by the court below.

There being no one who actually saw the occurrence, plaintiff was left primarily and almost wholly to proving his case by calling the defendants as on cross-examination,…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Potter Title and Trust Co. v. YoungSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  2. Johnson v. RulonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
  3. Caulton v. Eyre Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  4. Yoshiko Yamauchi v. O'NeillCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
  5. Matthews v. DerencinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1948

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Smith v. United News Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
  2. Homa v. Wilkes-Barre Transit Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
  3. Underwood v. Gale Tschuor Co., Inc.Indiana Court of Appeals · 2003
  4. Rafferty v. DiJohn, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Northampton County1956
  5. Thomas v. TomaySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API