Legal Opinion

Weschler v. Carroll

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 11, 1990No. 748PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KELLY, Judge:

In this appeal we are called upon to determine whether the trial court properly precluded the appellant-husband’s testimony under the provisions of the Dead Man’s Act (42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5930) as to the facts surrounding an alleged accident in which there were no witnesses other than the appellant-husband and the decedent, when the appellants sought only to recover against the decedent’s automobile *44liability insurance policy and not his estate. We find the trial court correctly applied the statute, and properly precluded the appellant-husband’s testimony.

The relevant facts and…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Rothman v. FilletteSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  2. In Re Estate of HallSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  3. Estate of KofskySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  4. Hendrickson EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
  5. Weaver v. WelshSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. In Re: B. Fiedler, Appeal of: E. FiedlerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
  2. Larkin v. MetzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  3. Davis, D. v. Wright, B.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
  4. Foster v. Colonial Assurance Co.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  5. Speight v. Mahalis, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County2008

2 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