Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Delaware River Port Authority
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
DEL SOLE, P.J.:
¶ 1 Our Supreme Court has remanded this matter, instructing this Court to address certain issues. First, we must determine whether a declarant in a witness protection program is unavailable for purposes of Pa.R.E. 804. Secondly, we must interpret a term of the contract entered into by the parties named in this action.
¶ 2 A brief history is in order. In 1993, Consolidated Rail Corporation (“Conrail”) entered into an Intermodal Switching Letter Agreement (“I.S.L. Agreement”) with Delaware River Port Authority (“Appellant”). The I.S.L. Agreement stated that Appellant would provide…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Liddle v. ScholzeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
- Deskiewicz v. Zenith Radio Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
- Spicer v. Metropolitan Dade CountyDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1984
- Fox Park Corp. v. James Leasing Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
3Cited by18 opinions
- I.K. v. School District of Haverford TownshipDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2013
- Maloney v. Valley Medical Facilities, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
- Chester Upland School District v. Edward J. Meloney, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
- Sycamore Restaurant Group, LLC v. Stampfi Hartke Associates, LLCSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
- Burlington Coat Factory v. Grace ConstructionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.