Legal Opinion
Soxman v. Goodge
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided February 16, 1988No. 00105PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HOFFMAN, Judge:
This is an appeal from the order of the lower court granting in part and denying in part appellants’ motion for leave to file an amended answer. Appellants contend that the lower court erred in concluding that the execution of releases by appellees did not present a viable defense for appellants. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the order of the trial court.
From August 1983 to April 1984, appellee Jane Soxman was treated for cochlear hydrops, a condition of the inner ear, at appellant Randour Chiropractic Clinic. Having developed back problems, Soxman discontinued…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Boyd v. SmithSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
- Leidy v. Deseret Enterprises, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
- Phillips Home Furnishings, Inc. v. Continental BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
- Grota v. LaBoccettaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1967
- Phillips Home Furnishings, Inc. v. Continental BankSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Charles Sean Kruzits and Mary Kruzits v. Okuma MacHine Tool, Inc. Heller Financial, Inc. Gosiger, Inc. v. Vincent W. Visco, D/B/A Vistek Industries, Third-Party Heller Financial, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
- MacGregor v. Mediq Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
- Gillingham v. Consol Energy, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
- Horowitz v. Universal Underwriters InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
- John Spearly Construction, Inc. v. Penns Valley Area School DistrictCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.