Lininger v. KROMER
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Hoffman, J.,
Appellant, Tony Kobylarczyk, contends that the trial court erred (1) in holding that his out-of-court statement made two hours after an automobile accident was not within the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule and, therefore, was not admissible, and (2) in directing the plaintiffs either to file a remittitur or to undergo a second trial limited to the issue of damages, instead of awarding a general new trial.
The factual history of the case is not complicated. On November 6, 1968, at approximately 5:00 p.m., appellant’s pick-up truck was involved in an accident with…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
- Scaife Co. v. Rockwell-Standard Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
- Allen v. MackSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
- Commonwealth v. BanksSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
- Commonwealth v. CheeksSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Kiser v. SchulteSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
- Commonwealth v. PronkoskieSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
- Albert v. AlterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
- Cashdollar v. Mercy HospitalSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
- Commonwealth v. HessSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.