Legal Opinion

Wadatz, Admrx. v. Taormina

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 26, 1947No. Appeal, 130PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Jones,

This appeal might well be quashed, as the appellee has moved, because of the appellant’s patent failure to comply with our Rules as to the proper contents of an appellant’s brief. However, inasmuch as the appeal has been extensively argued on the merits, we choose to dispose of it on the same basis and, by so doing, perhaps confirm that an appeal which fails to raise a single respectable legal question or a justifiable complaint of trial error rightfully has no chance of success.

The action out of which the instant appeal arose was instituted to recover damages for…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Maize v. Atlantic Refining Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
  2. Patterson v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  3. Cohn v. ScheuerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1887
  4. Shively v. McDonnellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  5. Reppert v. White Star Lines, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. House of Pasta, Inc. v. MayoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  2. Walsh v. Pennsylvania Gas & Water Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  3. Richards v. Dravo Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  4. May v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
  5. Bitting v. WolfeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951

12 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