Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Larsen v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 11, 1991No. 75Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partOlszewski, Judge

On appeal, Justice Larsen argues that the trial court erred by reading the record to favor the moving party and applying the incorrect standard to judge his burden as to the defamation claim. As to the invasion of privacy claim, Justice Larsen argues that the trial court granted summary judgment in violation of the Nanty-Glo rule. After a *560careful review of the record and the arguments of the parties, I concur in the result reached by my colleagues on Count III, but offer a differing rationale for so doing. I respectfully disagree with the majority’s disposition of Count IV and submit this…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
  2. Sheppard v. MaxwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  3. Thompson Coal Co. v. Pike Coal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  4. Landmark Communications, Inc. v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  5. Nanty-Glo Boro. v. American Surety Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932

23 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