Legal Opinion

Jozsa v. Hottenstein

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 14, 1987No. 815PublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DEL SOLE, Judge:

The instant appeal stems from a medical malpractice action in which judgment was entered against Appellants, Josephine and Edward Jozsa. The primary theory advanced by Appellants was lack of informed consent. At the conclusion of the testimony, the trial judge directed a verdict in favor of Appellee, Jonathan Hottenstein, M.D. Post-trial motions were denied, and Appellants raise a single issue before this Court: did the trial court err in directing the verdict.

We begin our discussion with our appellate scope of review. “On a motion for a directed verdict, the trial court must…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Cooper v. RobertsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
  2. Festa v. GreenbergSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  3. McDevitt v. Terminal Warehouse Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  4. Bucchianeri v. Equitable Gas Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. Neal by Neal v. LuSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  2. Morosetti v. Louisiana Land & Exploration Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  3. Dorn v. Stanhope Steel, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  4. Sagala v. TavaresSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  5. Millard v. NagleSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1991

26 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