Legal Opinion

Ortiz v. Gamble

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 30, 2000Published

1Opinion of the Court

MONTEMURO, J.:

¶ 1 Appellant appeals from the entry of summary judgment in favor of the Pennsylvania Financial Responsibility Assigned Claims Plan (“the Plan”). We vacate and remand.

A motion for summary judgment may properly be granted when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Hopewell Estates, Inc. v. Kent, 435 Pa.Super. 471, 646 A.2d 1192, 1194 (1994).

When determining if a trial court…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Pennsylvania Financial Responsibility Assigned Claims Plan v. EnglishSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  2. Merriweather v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
  3. Hodges v. RodriguezSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  4. Hopewell Estates, Inc. v. KentSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  5. Borough of Mifflinburg v. HeimSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997

2 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