Legal Opinion · Dissent

Baesel v. New Blvd. Baking Co., Inc.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 24, 1991No. 2622Published

1DissentPopovich, Judge

Unlike the Majority, my review of the record indicates that the court below was presented with sufficient information (absence of a genuine issue of material fact) to grant Hill Creek Farms, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, for the reasons that follow, I respectfully dissent.

This case involves dual appeals (consolidated for disposition) taken from orders granting motions for summary judgment: The first is from the August 23, 1990, order entered against the plaintiff/appellant, Kevin Baesel; the second concerns the order dated December 31, 1990, issued against the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Henze v. Texaco, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  2. DUBLIN BY DUBLIN v. ShusterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  3. Kolojeski v. John Deisher, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968

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

Powered by the Exa API