PORTO v. PEDEN

Civ. A. No. 62-769.

233 F.Supp. 178 (1964)

Frank PORTO, Plaintiff, v. John J. PEDEN and Albert J. Peden, individually and trading and doing business as Peden Bros., a partnership, Defendants.

United States District Court W. D. Pennsylvania.

August 11, 1964.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Frank Lewis, Beaver Falls, Pa., Louis C. Glasso, Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.

Sanford M. Chilcote of Dickie, McCamey, Chilcote & Robinson, Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendants.


MARSH, District Judge.

In this diversity negligence action the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants upon which judgment was entered. The plaintiff timely moved for a new trial assigning 9 reasons therefor. In our opinion the motion should be denied.

The first reason assigned states: "1. The judgment is contrary to the legal and competent evidence."

We do not think this ground has any merit. The verdict of the jury was in accordance with...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases