Legal Opinion

Paulscak v. Hoebler

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 24, 1938No. Appeal, 101PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Maxey,

This is an action in trespass. The plaintiff resided on the first floor of a three-story building at 2201 Tustin Street, Pittsburgh, by virtue of a lease from the owner, who is the original defendant in this suit. The Pittsburgh Outdoor Advertising Company, successor to General Outdoor Advertising Company, was brought in as additional defendant on a writ of scire facias, on January 20, 1936.

On or about August 18, 1935, at 6 p. m., the sidewall of this building, constructed of brick, mortar and plaster, and facing on Moultrie Street, caved in and struck the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Ashby v. Philadelphia Electric Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  2. McGlone v. William Angus, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
  3. Bruggeman v. City of YorkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
  4. Pennsylvania Steel Co. v. Elmore & Hamilton Contracting Co.District Court, N.D. New York · 1909
  5. Gerdes v. Booth & Flinn, Ltd.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Zanine v. GallagherSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  2. Stais v. Sears-Roebuck and Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
  3. Scurfield v. Federal Laboratories, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  4. Mann v. PulliamSupreme Court of Missouri · 1939
  5. Parthenia Mercer v. United States of America and Jesse Gallman and Beulah GallmanCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1970

7 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