Pridgen v. Parker Hannifin Corp.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION ON REARGUMENT
Justice SAYLOR.
The background for this matter in which we have permitted reargument, submitted on the briefs, is set forth in Pridgen v. Parker Hannifin Corp., 588 Pa. 405, 905 A.2d 422 (2006).
There, this Court addressed whether interlocutory appeals as of right lie from a common pleas court’s orders denying summary judgment in consolidated product liability cases, on motions of defendant airplane engine manufacturers grounded on an eighteen-year federal statute of repose established in the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994. 1 Once it was determined that the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Pridgen v. Parker Hannifin Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
- Hiser v. Bell Helicopter Textron Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2003
- Campbell v. Parker-Hannifin Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1999
3Cited by14 opinions
- Jill Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive CorpCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2018
- Moyer v. Teledyne Continental Motors, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
- Burton v. Twin Commander Aircraft LLCWashington Supreme Court · 2011
- Burton v. Twin Commander Aircraft, LLCWashington Supreme Court · 2011
- Aubrey v. Precision Airmotive LLCSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.