Legal Opinion

DiPietro v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 21, 1934No. Appeal, No. 84PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Simpson,

Plaintiff sued to recover damages which he alleged he had sustained and would thereafter sustain by reason of the negligence of the defendant, resulting in a collision between an automobile, in which plaintiff was riding as a guest, and another belonging to defendant and being driven by one of its employees upon its business. The jury rendered a verdict for plaintiff for $85,000. This the court below reduced to $60,000, and for that sum judgment was duly entered. Appellant admits in its brief “that this case was for the jury,” which necessarily concedes that…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. McCaffrey v. SchwartzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
  2. Herb v. HallowellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
  3. Ellsworth v. LauthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
  4. Kerrigan v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
  5. Steinbrunner v. Pittsb. etc. Ry. Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County1892

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Rosche v. McCoySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
  2. Frankel v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1970
  3. Patterson v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  4. Reilly v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation AuthoritySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  5. McKniff v. WilsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1961

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