Legal Opinion

Carringer v. Taylor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 18, 1990No. 1467, 1628 and 1629PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

POPOVICH, Judge:

This consolidated appeal arises from a dispute over the improvement of a one-lane dirt road which lies along the bank of the Allegheny River near Tionesta in Forest County, Pennsylvania. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

On appeal, Bruce Taylor (hereafter “Taylor”) alleges the lower court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Robert Carringer et al., (hereafter “Carringer”), because Carringer failed to state a cause of action, material issues of fact remain unresolved and entry of summary judgment violated the Nanty-Glo Rule.1 Taylor also contends the dismissal of…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Nanty-Glo Boro. v. American Surety Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  2. Consumer Party of Pennsylvania v. Com.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  3. Rybas v. WapnerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  4. Ecksel v. Orleans Construction Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  5. Garcia v. Community Legal Services Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Donohoe v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1994
  2. Simmons v. Township of MoonCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  3. Ham v. SulekSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
  4. Birdsboro Municipal Authority v. Reading Co. & Wilmington & Northern RailroadSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  5. DiNicola v. DiPaoloDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1996

8 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