Womack v. Crowley
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
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
- Harman Ex Rel. Harman v. BorahSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
- Coker v. SM Flickinger Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
- Boggavarapu v. PonistSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
- Davis v. MullenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
- Criswell v. KingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Kopytin v. AschingerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
- Kindermann, P. v. Cunningham, J.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
- Koziar, M. v. Rayner, N.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2018
- Imperial Excavating & Paving, LLC v. Rizzetto Construction Management, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
- Brown v. Seyler, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Centre County2007
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.