Legal Opinion

Nash v. Chemetron Corporation

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 31, 1977No. 1166PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PRICE, Judge:

This appeal is from the lower court’s order granting a motion for summary judgment in favor of appellee Chemetron Corporation. It is well established that a motion for summary judgment may be granted only if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file, and affidavits demonstrate that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Pa.R.C.P. No. 1035(b). The moving party has the burden of proving that a summary judgment is appropriate, Ammerman v. Lush, 236 Pa.Super. 231, 345…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. United States v. Western Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
  2. Local Union No. 189, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen v. Jewel Tea Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1965
  3. Barker v. BrownSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  4. Ammerman v. LushSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1975

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. State Automobile Insurance v. KuhfahlSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  2. Bonifield v. Cassler, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County1980
  3. Cranshaw Construction Inc. v. GhristSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  4. Cranshaw Construction Inc. v. GhristSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  5. Easton-Phillipsburg Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Puritan Life Insurance, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Northampton County1985

6 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