Legal Opinion

Hatfield v. Continental Imports, Inc.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 20, 1992No. 48 and 49 E.D. Appeal Dkt. 1991PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

McDERMOTT, Justice.

In this case we are called upon to determine the admissibility into evidence of a so-called “Mary Carter agreement.” 1 The underlying facts and procedural history are as follows.

On April 15, 1978, appellee Agnes Hatfield sustained injuries when the chair upon which she was sitting collapsed. On February 6, 1980, Mrs. Hatfield and her husband, Herbert, initiated , an action, sounding in negligence and products liability, against appellee Continental Imports, Inc. (Continental), and appellees Marvin Gross and Leonard Gross, individually and trading as Warehouse Imports…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Booth v. Mary Carter Paint CompanyDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1967
  2. Reese v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadIllinois Supreme Court · 1973
  3. General Motors Corp. v. LahockiCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1980
  4. Martin v. SoblotneySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  5. Ward v. OchoaSupreme Court of Florida · 1973

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

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Sprague v. WalterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  2. Commonwealth v. BeschSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
  3. Ragnar Benson, Inc. v. HEMPFIELD TOWNSHIP MUNICIPAL AUTHORITYSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  4. Bannar v. MillerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  5. Monti v. WenkertSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2008

24 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