Legal Opinion

Liles v. Balmer

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 11, 1989No. 119PublishedCited by 33 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WIEAND, Judge:

This is an appeal from an order entering summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The trial court’s order was based upon its belief that the plaintiff would be unable to produce admissible evidence that the accident occurred as alleged in her complaint. This is a close question. After careful review of the pre-trial record, however, we conclude that the plaintiff-appellant must be given añ opportunity to prove her claim at trial. Therefore, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

A motion for summary judgment may properly be granted “if the pleadings, depositions,…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. In re Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1983
  2. Thorsen v. Iron and Glass BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  3. Phaff v. GernerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
  4. Chorba v. Davlisa Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  5. Berardi v. Johns-Manville Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984

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

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. Myers v. Penn Traffic Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  2. Johnson v. HarrisSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  3. First v. Zem Zem Temple, A.A.O.N.M.S.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
  4. Liles v. BalmerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  5. Cade v. McDanelSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1996

28 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