Legal Opinion

Carroll v. Pittsburgh

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 15, 1951No. Appeals, 172 and 173PublishedCited by 90 opinions

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

  1. Jones Et Vir v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
  2. Bellettiere v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  3. O'Malley v. Laurel Line Bus Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
  4. Landis v. Conestoga Transportation Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
  5. Fornelli v. Penna. R. R. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932

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

3Cited by90 opinions

  1. Coker v. SM Flickinger Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
  2. Burrell v. Philadelphia Electric Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
  3. Albert v. AlterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  4. Decker v. KuleszaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1952
  5. Hawthorne v. Dravo Corp., Keystone Div.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986

85 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