Schreckengost v. Kraft, 204 A.2d 646 (Pa. 1964). · Go Syfert
Schreckengost v. Kraft, 204 A.2d 646 (Pa. 1964). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Abee v. Stamm (pawd, 1967-08-30)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Abee v. Stamm
W.D. Pa. · 1967 · confidence medium
He cites: Schreckengost v. Kraft, 415 Pa. 567 , 204 A.2d 646, 649 (1964); Deibold v. Sommerville, 207 Pa. Super. 31 , 215 A.2d 313 (1965); Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Co. v. Staats, 358 Pa. 344 , 57 A.2d 830 (1948); Wermeling v. Shattuck, 366 Pa. 23 , 76 A.2d 406 (1950). 3 The first three cases involved accidents at city intersections; the first two involved injuries to urban pedestrians; the third a collision between vehicles traversing each intersecting street.
discussed Cited "see" Matthews, J. v. Batroney, C.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Schreckengost v. Kraft, 204 A.2d 646 (Pa. Super. 1964) (forfeiture of statutory right-of-way by speeding); and Williams v. Philadelphia Toilet & Laundry Co., 29 A.2d 336 (Pa. Super. 1942) (forfeiture of statutory right-of-way by travelling on wrong side of roadway).
discussed Cited "see" Matthews, J. v. Batroney, C.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Schreckengost v. Kraft, 204 A.2d 646 (Pa. Super. 1964) (forfeiture of statutory right-of-way by speeding); and Williams v. Philadelphia Toilet & Laundry Co., 29 A.2d 336 (Pa. Super. 1942) (forfeiture of statutory right-of-way by travelling on wrong side of roadway).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Schreckengost, Appellant,
v.
Kraft
Appeal, 304.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Nov 10, 1964.
204 A.2d 646
1964 Pa. LEXIS 493
Robert M. Dale, with him J. G. McGill, and Dale and Woodard, for appellants., Leo M. Brewster, for appellee.
Bell, Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The opinion of President Judge Breene adequately covers the issue in this case.

Judgments affirmed.

Mr. Justice Eagen dissents.