Legal Opinion

Modony v. Megdal

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 1, 1935No. Appeal, 109PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Simpson,

Defendant appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiff in an action for negligence. Appellant avers that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, and hence asks us to decide only: (1) Whether or not the trial judge erred in refusing to affirm his, appellant’s, point for binding instructions, and (2) Whether or not the court in banc erred in dismissing his, appellant’s, motion for judgment non obstante veredicto.

Plaintiff was a carpenter engaged in carrying on his trade in the Borough of Midland, Beaver County, Pa. Defendant was a…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Lerner v. City of PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
  2. Hoffner Et Ux. v. BergdollSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  3. Davis v. EdmondsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
  4. Fordyce v. White Star Bus LinesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  5. Conboy v. Osage Tribe No. 113Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Dively v. Penn-Pittsburgh Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  2. Vetter v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
  3. Murphy v. Bernheim & Sons, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  4. Just v. Sons of Italy HallSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
  5. Cathcart v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1935

17 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