Legal Opinion

Womack v. Crowley

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 22, 2005PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION BY HUDOCK, J.:

¶ 1 Katherine Crowley and Kimberly Devine (Crowley and Devine) appeal from the order granting Debra Womack’s (Womack) motion for a new trial limited to damages. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

¶ 2 The trial court has ably summarized the relevant facts as follows:

On April 19, 2001, [Womack] was traveling west on Berkley Street when the car she was driving was hit from behind by a car driven by [Crowley]. [Womack was stopped at a traffic light at the intersection of Wayne and Berkley Streets. Crowley, who was driving De-vine’s Ford Explorer, was stopped behind…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Harman Ex Rel. Harman v. BorahSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  2. Coker v. SM Flickinger Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
  3. Boggavarapu v. PonistSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  4. Davis v. MullenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  5. Criswell v. KingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Kopytin v. AschingerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
  2. Kindermann, P. v. Cunningham, J.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
  3. Koziar, M. v. Rayner, N.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2018
  4. Imperial Excavating & Paving, LLC v. Rizzetto Construction Management, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  5. Brown v. Seyler, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Centre County2007

13 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