Tranter v. Mandelbaum

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Tranter v. Mandelbaum

234 A.2d 845, 427 Pa. 326, 1967 Pa. LEXIS 485

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedNovember 14, 1967

DocketAppeals, 183 and 184

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 234 A.2d 845 (Tranter v. Mandelbaum) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tranter v. Mandelbaum, 234 A.2d 845, 427 Pa. 326, 1967 Pa. LEXIS 485 (Pa. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Bell,

These are actions of trespass (which were consolidated for trial) for personal injuries and property damage resulting from an automobile collision which occurred December 11, 1962.

Sophie Tranter, plaintiff, was a passenger in an automobile operated by Anastasias Soldatos. This automobile was involved in a collision with an automobile operated by defendant Max Mandelbaum. Sophie Tran *328 ter and her husband, Wilfred Tranter, brought suit against Max Mandelbaum. Soldatos was joined as an additional defendant. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Sophie Tranter in the amount of $12,000 and in favor of Wilfred Tranter in the amount of $2,000 against defendant Max Mandelbaum.

Soldatos instituted an action of trespass against defendant Mandelbaum. Mandelbaum filed a counterclaim. The jury returned a verdict of $15,000 in favor of Soldatos against Mandelbaum, and on the counterclaim found in favor of Soldatos against Mandelbaum.

Defendant Mandelbaum thereafter filed motions for a new trial and for judgment n.o.v. These motions were dismissed and Judgments were entered on the verdicts. He thereafter appealed to this Court. His basic contention is that the verdicts were excessive and that this Court should grant a new trial or reduce the verdicts. The lower Court, in its Opinion stated: “Suffice to say that we are satisfied these parties are, under the law, entitled to their verdicts.”

We have carefully reviewed appellant’s brief and have studied the record. We find no clear abuse of discretion or error of law which controlled the outcome of the ease. Zeman v. Canonsburg Boro., 423 Pa. 450, 223 A. 2d 728; Amon v. Shemaka, 419 Pa. 314, 214 A. 2d 238; Trimble v. Merloe, 413 Pa. 408, 197 A. 2d 457; DeMichiei v. Holfelder, 410 Pa. 483, 189 A. 2d 882.

Judgments affirmed.

Mr. Justice Mtjsmanno took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Bell,

These are actions of trespass (which were consolidated for trial) for personal injuries and property damage resulting from an automobile collision which occurred December 11, 1962.

Sophie Tranter, plaintiff, was a passenger in an automobile operated by Anastasias Soldatos. This automobile was involved in a collision with an automobile operated by defendant Max Mandelbaum. Sophie Tran *328 ter and her husband, Wilfred Tranter, brought suit against Max Mandelbaum. Soldatos was joined as an additional defendant. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Sophie Tranter in the amount of $12,000 and in favor of Wilfred Tranter in the amount of $2,000 against defendant Max Mandelbaum.

Soldatos instituted an action of trespass against defendant Mandelbaum. Mandelbaum filed a counterclaim. The jury returned a verdict of $15,000 in favor of Soldatos against Mandelbaum, and on the counterclaim found in favor of Soldatos against Mandelbaum.

Defendant Mandelbaum thereafter filed motions for a new trial and for judgment n.o.v. These motions were dismissed and Judgments were entered on the verdicts. He thereafter appealed to this Court. His basic contention is that the verdicts were excessive and that this Court should grant a new trial or reduce the verdicts. The lower Court, in its Opinion stated: “Suffice to say that we are satisfied these parties are, under the law, entitled to their verdicts.”

We have carefully reviewed appellant’s brief and have studied the record. We find no clear abuse of discretion or error of law which controlled the outcome of the ease. Zeman v. Canonsburg Boro., 423 Pa. 450, 223 A. 2d 728; Amon v. Shemaka, 419 Pa. 314, 214 A. 2d 238; Trimble v. Merloe, 413 Pa. 408, 197 A. 2d 457; DeMichiei v. Holfelder, 410 Pa. 483, 189 A. 2d 882.

Judgments affirmed.

Mr. Justice Mtjsmanno took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.2d 845, 427 Pa. 326, 1967 Pa. LEXIS 485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tranter-v-mandelbaum-pa-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack