Carroll v. Pittsburgh
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Horace Stern,
The jury in this trespass action having found a verdict for defendants, we are of opinion that the court below was not justified in granting, as it did, plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence and that in the interest of justice a new trial should be had.
On the night of April 9, 1946 the wife-plaintiff, Marie P. Carroll, was a passenger on a trolley car on Federal Street operated by defendant Pittsburgh Railways Company. Federal Street is a main, much travelled, well lighted highway in the City of…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Jones Et Vir v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
- Bellettiere v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
- O'Malley v. Laurel Line Bus Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
- Landis v. Conestoga Transportation Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
- Fornelli v. Penna. R. R. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by90 opinions
- Coker v. SM Flickinger Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
- Burrell v. Philadelphia Electric Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
- Albert v. AlterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
- Decker v. KuleszaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1952
- Hawthorne v. Dravo Corp., Keystone Div.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
85 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.