Niggel v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• see also, Menarde v. Philadelphia Transportation Co., 376 Pa. 497, 103 A.2d 681 (1954); Vorbnoff v. Mesta Machine Co., 286 Pa. 199, 133 A. 256 (1926); Moyer v. Ford Motor Co., 205 Pa. Super. 384, 209 A.2d 43 (1965)
• “It is not enough to say that the alleged cause ‘possibly,’ or ‘could have’ led to the result, that it ‘could very properly account’ for the result, or even that it was ‘very highly probable’ that it caused the result.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).