leading case doctrine in Pennsylvania

1997The leading case on this doctrine was Summers v. Tice, 33 Cal.2d 80 , 199 P.2d 1 (1948).

1997The leading case on this doctrine was Summers v. Tice, 33 Cal.2d 80 , 199 P.2d 1 (1948).

1968In Engle v. Spino, 425 Pa. 254 , 228 A. 2d 745 , the Court pertinently said (page 257): “‘The mere happening of an accident . . . does not establish negligence nor raise an inference or a presumption of negligence nor make out a prima facie case of negligence: [citing 7 supporting decisions of this Court].’ ” The Court further stated (page 257) : “ ‘The law is likewise clear that the plaintiff has the burden of proving by a fair preponderance of the evidence that defendant was negr ligent and that his negligence was the proximate cause of the accident: Stimac v. Barkey, 405 Pa., supra; Schofie

1968In Engle v. Spino, 425 Pa. 254 , 228 A. 2d 745 , the Court pertinently said (page 257): “‘The mere happening of an accident . . . does not establish negligence nor raise an inference or a presumption of negligence nor make out a prima facie case of negligence: [citing 7 supporting decisions of this Court].’ ” The Court further stated (page 257) : “ ‘The law is likewise clear that the plaintiff has the burden of proving by a fair preponderance of the evidence that defendant was negr ligent and that his negligence was the proximate cause of the accident: Stimac v. Barkey, 405 Pa., supra; Schofie

2017Teleglobe, 493 F.3d at 366 (citing, in part, Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 75(2) (2000)).

2016The leading case for that rule is United States v. Berryhill, 445 F.2d 1189 (9th Cir. 1971).

2000IA, p. 552 11. 7-23.) The leading case on the doctrine is Jones v. Chidester, 531 Pa. 31 , 610 A.2d 964 (1992).

2000IA, p. 552 11. 7-23.) The leading case on the doctrine is Jones v. Chidester, 531 Pa. 31 , 610 A.2d 964 (1992).

1982The leading case applying this doctrine to section. 1502(a) is Tesauro v. Baird, 232 Pa. Super 195 , 335 A.2d 792 (1975).

1982The leading case applying this doctrine to section. 1502(a) is Tesauro v. Baird, 232 Pa. Super 195 , 335 A.2d 792 (1975).

1968In Engle v. Spino, 425 Pa. 254 , 228 A. 2d 745 , the Court pertinently said (page 257): “‘The mere happening of an accident . . . does not establish negligence nor raise an inference or a presumption of negligence nor make out a prima facie case of negligence: [citing 7 supporting decisions of this Court].’ ” The Court further stated (page 257) : “ ‘The law is likewise clear that the plaintiff has the burden of proving by a fair preponderance of the evidence that defendant was negr ligent and that his negligence was the proximate cause of the accident: Stimac v. Barkey, 405 Pa., supra; Schofie

1968In Engle v. Spino, 425 Pa. 254 , 228 A. 2d 745 , the Court pertinently said (page 257): “‘The mere happening of an accident . . . does not establish negligence nor raise an inference or a presumption of negligence nor make out a prima facie case of negligence: [citing 7 supporting decisions of this Court].’ ” The Court further stated (page 257) : “ ‘The law is likewise clear that the plaintiff has the burden of proving by a fair preponderance of the evidence that defendant was negr ligent and that his negligence was the proximate cause of the accident: Stimac v. Barkey, 405 Pa., supra; Schofie

1968In Engle v. Spino, 425 Pa. 254 , 228 A. 2d 745 , the Court pertinently said (page 257): “‘The mere happening of an accident . . . does not establish negligence nor raise an inference or a presumption of negligence nor make out a prima facie case of negligence: [citing 7 supporting decisions of this Court].’ ” The Court further stated (page 257) : “ ‘The law is likewise clear that the plaintiff has the burden of proving by a fair preponderance of the evidence that defendant was negr ligent and that his negligence was the proximate cause of the accident: Stimac v. Barkey, 405 Pa., supra; Schofie

1968In Engle v. Spino, 425 Pa. 254 , 228 A. 2d 745 , the Court pertinently said (page 257): “‘The mere happening of an accident . . . does not establish negligence nor raise an inference or a presumption of negligence nor make out a prima facie case of negligence: [citing 7 supporting decisions of this Court].’ ” The Court further stated (page 257) : “ ‘The law is likewise clear that the plaintiff has the burden of proving by a fair preponderance of the evidence that defendant was negr ligent and that his negligence was the proximate cause of the accident: Stimac v. Barkey, 405 Pa., supra; Schofie

1958Rep. 665, as follows: “. . . where the thing is shewn to be under the management of the defendant or his servants, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendants, that the accident arose from want of care.” The leading case of the doctrine in Pennsylvania is Shafer v. Lacock, Hawthorne & Co.,, 168 Pa. 497 , which states the rule substantially, as above, quoting Sherman and Redfield on Negligence, secs. 59 and 60, as follows: “The accide

1944As Justice Frazer points out (page 17) such direction rendered the paper “testamentary in character, and consequently not effective to vest a present interest. . . .” Perhaps the leading case on this principle is Turner v. Scott, 51 Pa. 126 .