Legal Opinion · Dissent

Estate of Fells ex rel. Boulding v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 15, 1993Published

1DissentFriedman, Judge

I respectfully dissent because I disagree with the majority that Dr. Eagle’s letter to Dr.- Zittle falls within any exception to the rule against hearsay. I do not believe that the letter was a representative (vicarious) admission. A statement is not admissible as a vicarious admission unless there is a principal-agent relationship and the person making the statement was authorized to speak for the principal. DeFrancesco v. Western Pennsylvania Water Co., 329 Pa.Superior Ct. 508, 478 A.2d 1295 (1984). Claimant and Dr. Eagle did not have a principal-agent relationship. An agency relationship…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Volunteer Fire Co. v. Hilltop Oil Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  2. DeFrancesco v. Western Pennsylvania Water Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  3. Dorsey v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  4. Hershey v. Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1992

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API