Weinfeld v. Funk
20 A.2d 206, 342 Pa. 160, 1941 Pa. LEXIS 497
Opinion
This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial. In its opinion, the court states: “After a careful review of the entire case, we reached the firm conclusion that justice demanded that plaintiff’s motion for a new trial be sustained.” We have uniformly held that under such circumstances we will not review the action of the court below: Reese v. Pittsburgh Rys. Co., 336 Pa. 299, 9 A. 2d 394; Kerr v. Hofer, 341 Pa. 47, 17 A. 2d 886.
The order of the court below is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Weinfeld v. Funk, 20 A.2d 206, 342 Pa. 160, 1941 Pa. LEXIS 497 (Pa. 1941).
20 A.2d 206 (Weinfeld v. Funk) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Commonwealth v. Powell
590 A.2d 1240 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1991)
Ross v. Crisanti
90 A.2d 299 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1952)
Bellettiere v. Philadelphia
81 A.2d 857 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1951)
Rosanoff v. Duquesne University
74 A.2d 172 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1950)
Durdella v. Rothman
49 A.2d 64 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1946)
Auslander v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co.
39 A.2d 595 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1944)
Commonwealth v. Dolan
38 A.2d 497 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1944)
Gerber v. Jones (Et Al.)
30 A.2d 534 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1942)
German, Adr. v. Riddell
27 A.2d 680 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1942)
Schornig v. Speer
24 A.2d 12 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1942)
Powell v. Garden Court Corp.
22 A.2d 605 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1941)
Murphy v. McGinnis
22 A.2d 649 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1941)