Legal Opinion

Livingston v. Murray

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 29, 1992No. 1693PublishedCited by 35 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BROSKY, Judge.

This is an appeal from the order of the lower court which granted appellees’ motion for summary judgment. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the basis that appellees’ statements were incapable of defamatory meaning. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

Before addressing appellant’s claim, we will briefly recount the relevant facts of this case. Appellant, Eileen Livingston, was employed by Duquesne University as its athletic director. Because the athletic program was to be reorganized or restructured,…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Marks v. TasmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  2. Corabi v. Curtis Publishing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
  3. Agriss v. Roadway Express, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  4. Baker v. Lafayette CollegeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  5. Beckman v. DunnSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1980

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

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. Maier v. MarettiSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  2. Mzamane v. WinfreyDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2010
  3. Green v. MiznerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  4. Today's Housing v. Times Shamrock Communications, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
  5. Krolczyk, G. v. Goddard Systems, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2017

30 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