Legal Opinion

Henigin v. Booth & Flinn, Ltd.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 19, 1932No. Appeal, 102PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion bt

Mr. Justice Simpson,

In this action of trespass for negligence, plaintiff recovered a verdict and judgment, from the latter of which defendant appeals. There are eighteen assignments of error, which are grouped under five heads in the statement of the questions involved. In the first two, defendant contends it was entitled to binding instructions in its favor, (1) because of an absence of negligence on its part, and (2) because of the presence of contributory-negligence on the part of plaintiff. Under the third, it asserts the charge of the trial judge to the jury was misleading and…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. King v. Equitable Gas Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  2. Thirkell v. Equitable Gas Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  3. Donovan v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  4. Kleckner v. Central RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
  5. Whitman v. StippSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Morton v. Ambridge BoroughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
  2. Barth Et Vir v. KlinckSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
  3. Cimino v. LaubSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
  4. Martin Et Ux. v. SteenSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  5. Besecker v. General Acceptance Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1940

3 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