Legal Opinion

Hoeveler-Stutz Co. v. Cleveland Motor Sales

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 24, 1927No. Appeal 113PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Keller, J.,

Eighteen assignments of error have been filed in this appeal. At least nine of them (Assignments 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14 and 16) violate rule 26 of this court. All of these relate to the admission of evidence over the plaintiff’s objection. They quote verbatim the question, the objection thereto, and the ruling of the court, but do not give the answer, (i. e. ‘the evidence admitted’), by which alone we can determine whether the plaintiff was harmed by the court’s ruling. It is only in rare cases (such as when in criminal prosecutions a question is asked the defendant…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. BrownSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
  2. Leitch v. Sanford Motor Truck Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
  3. Howes v. ScottSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
  4. C. H. Hardy Auto Co. v. PoseySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
  5. American Manufacturing Co. v. S. Morgan Smith Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1904

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. HartmanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  2. First N. Bk. of Bangor v. Bangor Tr. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
  3. Automobile Banking Corp. v. Atlas Automobile Finance Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  4. General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
  5. S. F. Bowser & Co. v. Franklin Mortgage & Investment Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931

11 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