Legal Opinion

Snaman v. Donahoe's Incorporated

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 18, 1932No. Appeal, 85PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Linn,

It is well established that a party may waive, or will be held to have waived, the right to assert that error in a trial was harmful. If, instead of objecting to action of the trial court in time to avoid erroneous ruling, a party remains silent and takes his chances with the jury, he will not generally be permitted to assert, after a disappointing result, that he is entitled to another trial in which he may object. Illustrations of the application of the rule are given in a note at the foot of this opinion. The record calls for the application of that rule.

Plaintiff…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. RazmusSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
  2. Kramer v. KisterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
  3. Bradwell v. Pittsb. Etc. Pass. Ry. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1891
  4. Mastel v. WalkerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
  5. Rottmund v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Eastley v. GlennSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
  2. Havranek v. PitssburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
  3. Finn v. Carnegie-Illinois Steel CorporationDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1946
  4. Wellitz v. ThomasSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  5. Com. Ex Rel. Moska v. MoskaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1932

2 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