Legal Opinion

Branham v. Rohm and Haas Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 12, 2011No. 1161 EDA 2010PublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION BY

PLATT, J.:

Appellant, The Dow Chemical Company (Dow), appeals from the order denying its motion to quash a subpoena to compel the deposition of a Dow corporate designee concerning vinyl chloride studies and related communications relevant to issues in the underlying case. Dow has also filed an application to stay this appeal. We deny Dow’s motion to stay, Appellee Branham’s motion to strike, and affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion to quash the subpoena.

In May of 2006, Joanne Branham, Ap-pellee, 1 filed the underlying personal injury action against Rohm and Haas and the…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Trach v. FellinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  2. Stoeckinger v. Presidential Financial Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
  3. Rohm and Haas Co. v. LinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
  4. Stahl v. First Pennsylvania Banking & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  5. Whitaker v. Frankford HospitalSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2009

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

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. Crespo, A. v. Hughes, W.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
  2. Deeds Ex Rel. Renzulli v. University of Pennsylvania Medical CenterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
  3. In re McKinneySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
  4. Meyer-Chatfield Corp. v. Bank Financial ServicesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
  5. Conway v. Cutler Group, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2012

26 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