Legal Opinion
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Holmes
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Decided November 12, 2003PublishedCited by 32 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION BY
Judge LEAVITT.
The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) has filed an interlocutory appeal of a decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court) to deny SEPTA’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. 1 The question is whether SEPTA can be held liable for its alleged mishandling of certain personal injury claims of SEPTA passengers under the bad faith provisions of the Judicial Code or under a theory of breach of good faith and fair dealing.
HISTORY OF THE CASE
On April 6, 1990, Trudy Holmes and Gregory Holmes, Jr. (Appellees), were injured…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Feingold v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation AuthoritySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
- Birth Center v. St. Paul Companies, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
- Creeger Brick & Building Supply Inc. v. Mid-State Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
- Love v. City of PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
- Mishoe v. Erie InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Brown v. Progressive InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
- Morrison v. Toys "R" Us, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2004
- Malt Beverages Distributors Ass'n v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
- Simmons v. PuuHawaii Supreme Court · 2004
- Goldman v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation AuthoritySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.