Legal Opinion
Kiehl v. Action Manufacturing Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided December 24, 1987No. 21 E.D. Appeal Docket 1987PublishedCited by 36 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
LARSEN, Justice.
In this case we must decide whether a parent corporation is entitled to immunity (pursuant to the Pennsylvania Work men’s Compensation Act, Act of June 2, 1915 P.L. 736 as amended June 21, 1939 P.L. 520 (Purdon’s 1952) 77 P.S. § 481(a)) from a third party suit brought against the parent corporation by an employee of its wholly owned subsidiary corporation.
Appellants, Maxine Kiehl and Lynn Ann Hess, brought individual actions in trespass against Appellee, Action Manufacturing Company (Action). Appellants were production line employees of Amcom Incorporated…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Schenley Distillers Corporation v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Boggs v. Blue Diamond Coal Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1979
- Lyon v. BarrettSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1982
- Wedner Unemployment Compensation CaseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. R.F. Lafferty & Co., Inc. Cogen Sklar, L.L.PCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2001
- Volb v. G.E. Capital Corp.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1995
- Manor v. Nestle Food Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1997
- Shared Communications Services of 1800-80 JFK Boulevard Inc. v. Bell Atlantic Properties Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
- Krasny v. Bagga (In Re Jamuna Real Estate LLC)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2007
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.