Legal Opinion

Eisert v. Jones

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 18, 1960No. Appeal, 135PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mb. Justice Bok,

Following a jury’s verdict for defendant, the court below granted a new trial and defendant has appealed.

The court did not certify, when requested, that its action was based on a single reason, but referred to its opinion, which deals with several errors alleged by plaintiff and fastens on two to justify its grant of new process.

Since we feel- that the case should properly be tried again, we will not pass on the factual or legal questions of negligence but will refer to such parts of the evidence as are needed to sustain our approval of the action below.

The accident…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Decker v. KuleszaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1952
  2. Patterson v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  3. Randolph v. CampbellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
  4. Wilson v. KallenbachSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  5. Kotlikoff v. Master, Admrx.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1942

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. MacIna v. McAdamsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  2. Piwoz v. IannaconeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
  3. Stegmuller v. DavisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
  4. Fugagli v. CamasiSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1967
  5. Lambert v. Pittsburgh Bridge & Iron WorksSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1974

4 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