Legal Opinion

Litman v. Peoples Natural Gas Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 20, 1982No. 685PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

POPOVICH, Judge:

Appellant, Eugene Litman, appeals from the order of the court en banc denying his motion for a new trial and for partial judgment n.o.v., and which affirmed the trial court’s grant of appellee’s motion for a directed verdict. We affirm.

As we said in Continental Super Market Food Service, Inc. v. Soboski, 210 Pa.Super. 304, 309, 232 A.2d 216, 219 (1967):

“On a motion for a directed verdict, the facts must be considered in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is made. ‘. . . [T]he court must accept as true all the evidence of that party which supports his…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Behrend v. Bell Telephone Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
  2. Chester County v. Philadelphia Electric Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
  3. Duquesne Light Co. v. Monroeville BoroughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
  4. McDevitt v. Terminal Warehouse Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  5. Behrend v. Bell Telephone CompanySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Fannin v. CrattySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  2. Morrow v. BELL TELE. CO. OF PENNSYLVANIASupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  3. Beary v. Pennsylvania Electric Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  4. Mathews v. GarnerCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1988
  5. Heffner by Heffner v. SchadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984

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