Legal Opinion
Grady v. Frito-Lay, Inc.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Decided December 31, 2001PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
McEWEN, President Judge Emeritus.
¶ 1 This appeal has been taken from the order which denied the motion of Carl and Diana Grady, hereinafter appellants, to remove a compulsory non-suit entered against them following the conclusion of the trial judge that appellants could not establish causation, an essential element of their cause of action, by reason of the pretrial ruling excluding the testimony of their two expert witnesses. We are constrained to reverse and remand.
¶ 2 Appellants filed a six-count complaint1 against appellee Frito-Lay, Inc., claiming that Mr. Grady had suffered an…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Kumho Tire Co. v. CarmichaelSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Frye v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1923
- In Re Paoli Railroad Yard PCB LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
- United States v. 14.38 Acres of Land, More or Less Situated in Leflore County, MississippiCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1996
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Grady v. Frito-Lay, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Trach v. FellinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Haney v. PagnanelliSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Export Boxing & Crating Inc. v. Tech Met, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County2003
- Grady v. Frito-Lay, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.