Legal Opinion

Takes v. Metropolitan Edison Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 20, 1997PublishedCited by 43 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

NIGRO, Justice.

The issue before this Court is whether the Superior Court erred in affirming the trial court’s finding that Appellee timely objected to a flawed punitive damages charge. Because we conclude that Appellee failed to timely and specifically object, we reverse the Superior Court’s decision as it pertains to the punitive damages issue.

Appellee, Metropolitan Edison Company (“Met-Ed”), is a utility company which supplies electricity to eastern Pennsylvania. In the fall of 1987, Met-Ed decided to have several of its electrical substations painted. Appellant, Steven Takes…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  2. Broxie v. Household Finance CompanySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  3. American Ass'n of Meat Processors v. Casualty Reciprocal ExchangeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  4. Smith v. BrooksSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  5. Takes v. Metropolitan Edison Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1995

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

3Cited by43 opinions

  1. Harman Ex Rel. Harman v. BorahSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  2. Steiner v. MarkelSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
  3. Thomas Jefferson University v. WapnerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  4. Whitaker v. Frankford HospitalSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
  5. Woodard v. ChatterjeeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2003

38 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