Legal Opinion

Hartman v. Miller

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 4, 1940No. Appeal, 125PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Argued October 4, 1940. This is an action by a business visitor against the owner of a building brought to recover damages for personal injuries. The case was submitted to a jury which found a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant filed a motion for judgment n.o.v. and plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial. Defendant's motion was refused and plaintiff's motion for a new trial was granted on the sole ground that the verdict was inadequate. Defendant has appealed. We are of the opinion that judgment should be entered for the defendant.

The plaintiff, a salesman, was sitting in a waiting…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Durning v. HymanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
  2. Kulka v. NemirovskySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  3. MacDougall v. Penna. Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
  4. Vetter v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
  5. Robb v. Niles-Bement-Pond Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Austin v. BuettnerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1956
  2. Stais v. Sears-Roebuck and Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
  3. Argo v. GoodsteinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
  4. Parsons Et Vir v. DrakeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1943
  5. Brewster v. MorroneSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959

5 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