Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Blumer v. Ford Motor Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 6, 2011No. 1224 WDA 2009Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY

SHOGAN, J.:

While I agree with the Majority in all other respects, I am constrained to disagree with the Majority’s finding of waiver as it concerns hearsay and the trial court’s failure to give a limiting instruction. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

Appellants challenge the admissibility of the Continuous Quality Improvement System (“CQIS”)1 reports and the Master Owner Relations System (“MORS”) reports generated by Ford and/or its dealers. In the second issue, Appellants argue that the trial court erred in admitting the reports because the earlier…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. United States v. Frank BakerCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1982
  2. Hutchinson v. Penske Truck Leasing Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  3. Spino v. John S. Tilley Ladder Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  4. United States v. Edwin Tony DavisCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1978
  5. Commonwealth Financial Systems, Inc. v. SmithSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2011

4 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