Legal Opinion
Claudio v. Dean MacHine Co., Inc.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Decided August 1, 2001PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLally-Green, J.
¶ 1 Appellant, Dean Machine, Inc. (DMI), appeals from the judgment entered *227September 19, 2000. We vacate the judgment and remand for a new trial.
¶ 2 The unusual procedural history of the case is as follows.1 On December 22, 1997, Appellees Luis Claudio and Sexta Claudio filed an action against Dean Machine Company (DMC), as well as other defendants who are no longer parties to the action. Appellees alleged that on January 24, 1996, Luis Claudio was operating a coil slitter machine in the course of his employment when the machine malfunctioned, causing severe injuries to his hand, including…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Richard J. Griffin and Mary Jane Griffin, His Wife v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1974
- Davis v. MillerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
- Carr v. American Red CrossCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
- Soderberg v. WeiselSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
- Fanning v. AcroMed Corp.District Court, E.D. New York · 1997
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Bennyhoff v. PappertSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
- Lundy v. ManchelSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
- Claudio v. Dean MacHine Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Export Boxing & Crating Inc. v. Tech Met, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County2003