Legal Opinion

Bell v. Kater

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 13, 2008No. 3253 EDA 2005PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by KLEIN, J.:

¶ 1 Andrea Kater appeals from the order denying her petition to strike the judgment entered against her following a jury verdict in favor of appellees Edward and Deborah Bell. We affirm.

¶ 2 Essentially, Kater claims that the trial court did not have jurisdiction because she was an employee acting in the scope of her employment, and despite the fact that she did not raise this objection until after a judgment against her and an appeal, the judgment should be stricken. A common pleas court does have subject matter jurisdiction to determine if the Workers’ Compensation Act,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. LeFlar v. Gulf Creek Indus. Park No. 2Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  2. APPLE v. ReichertSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
  3. Bellotti v. SpaederSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1969
  4. Flynn v. Casa Di Bertacchi Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
  5. Vogt v. Liberty Mutual Fire InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2006

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Sheard v. J.J. DeLuca Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  2. Beneficial Consumer Discount Co. v. VukmamSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
  3. Yoder, J. v. McCarthy Const., IncSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2023
  4. Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Boiler Erection & Repair Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
  5. City of Philadelphia v. Borough of WestvilleCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2014

17 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