Legal Opinion

Williams v. Dobransky

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 17, 1982No. 542PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HOFFMAN, Judge:

Appellant contends that the lower court erred in granting summary judgment because: (1) ordering the case to compulsory arbitration precluded action upon appellee’s motion; and (2) appellant had adequately established a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he had suffered a medically determinable physical impairment preventing him from performing substantially all of his customary activities for more than sixty consecutive days. We hold that the compulsory arbitration order did not prohibit the court from entertaining appellee’s motion, but determine that summary…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Nanty-Glo Boro. v. American Surety Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  2. Schacter v. AlbertSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
  3. Smith CaseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1955
  4. Runewicz v. Keystone InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  5. Amabile v. Auto Kleen Car WashSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1977

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Reilly v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation AuthoritySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  2. Amaechi v. ClarkNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1993
  3. Dauphin Deposit Bank & Trust Co. v. TennySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  4. Bucha v. E.J.J. Mickley Roofing Inc., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Northampton County1988
  5. Frey v. Second Ward Fire Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Northampton County1986

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