Legal Opinion

Deyarmin v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 20, 2007PublishedCited by 42 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION BY

ORIE MELVIN, J.:

¶ 1 By per curiam order entered July 19, 2006, this Court granted the Petitions for Review filed by Appellant, Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail), in 11 cases then pending against Conrail in the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County. Review was limited to the following question: “whether the trial court forestalled [Conrail’s] ability to create a record on the question of venue.” Order, 7/19/06. We have given that question careful consideration and now affirm the orders overruling Conrail’s preliminary objections to venue in the four cases presently remaining…

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Gallick v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Consolidated Rail Corporation v. GottshallSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  3. Commonwealth v. BetheaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  4. McGinley v. ScottSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1960
  5. Purcell v. Bryn Mawr HospitalSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990

26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by42 opinions

  1. Moss v. SCI - Mahanoy Superintendent Pa. Bd. of Prob. & ParoleCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2018
  2. Schultz v. MMI Products, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
  3. R.M. v. J.S.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
  4. Sehl v. NeffSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
  5. Stivason v. Timberline Post & Beam Structures Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2008

37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API