Legal Opinion

Larkin v. Metz

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 25, 1990No. 1149PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KELLY, Judge:

In this appeal we are called upon to determine whether the trial court properly applied the Dead Man’s Act in its granting of summary judgment in favor of the appellees by precluding both the appellants’ oral testimony and written evidence as to the existence of a written contract, which was allegedly lost or stolen, for the sale of property between the appellants and the decedent. We find that the trial court properly barred the appellants’ oral testimony, however, that it erred in precluding the appellants’ written evidence. Therefore, we find the trial court’s entrance of an…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Zlotziver v. ZlotziverSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1946
  2. Salerno v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  3. Harford Mutual Insurance v. MoorheadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  4. In Re Estate of HallSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  5. Hendrickson EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. In Re: B. Fiedler, Appeal of: E. FiedlerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
  2. Burns v. KabboulSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  3. Estate of PewSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  4. Punxsutawney Municipal Airport Authority v. LellockSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  5. Northern Health Facilities v. Batz ex rel. Estate of BatzDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2014

9 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