Manzitti v. Amsler
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partPopovich, Judge
While I wholeheartedly agree with the majority’s learned holding that a lawsuit for damages based on a loss of consortium claim may continue despite the settlement of the underlying personal injury claim, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s application of Rothman v. Fillette, 503 Pa. 259, 469 A.2d 543 (1983) to enforce the settlement agreement.
*470In Rothman, supra, our Supreme Court unequivocally stated:
At the outset, it must be understood that under the facts of this case there is no question of an implied or an apparent agency. The law in this jurisdiction is quite clear that an…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Holker v. ParkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1813
- Rothman v. FilletteSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
- Reifsnyder v. DoughertySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
- Archbishop v. KARLAKSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
- Starling v. West Erie Avenue Building & Loan Ass'nSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.