green
Positive treatment
4.9 score
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Harsh v. Petroll
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
This approach is problematic, because Appellants raised this claim separately in their petition for allowance of appeal, but it was not accepted for this Court’s review, as reflected in the limited grant Order, see Harsh, 580 Pa. at 546 , 862 A.2d at 581 (per curiam).
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Bucks County Investigating Grand Jury
(2×)
See In Re Bucks County Investigating Grand Jury, 862 A.2d 581, 582 (Pa.2004) (Castille, J., dissenting).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Eugene S. HARSH, Lois E. Harsh, Cheryl L. Zwoyer, Co-Administrators for the Estate of Douglas Lee Harsh, Deceased; Carol A. Zwoyer, Charles J. Zwoyer, Jr., Cheryl L. Zwoyer, Co-Administrators for the Estate of Connie J. Harsh, Deceased; And Cheryl L. Zwoyer, Administratrix for the Estate of Tyler D. Harsh, Deceased,
v.
Frederick W. PETROLL and Hac Farm Lines Agricultural Cooperative Association and Cyned (a/K/A Sined) Transport Corporation and Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and General Motors Corporation and Chevrolet Motor Division, General Motors Corporation and Jim McKay Chevrolet, Inc. Petition Of: Frederick W. Petroll and Hac Farm Lines Agricultural Cooperative Association and Cyned Transport Corporation
v.
Frederick W. PETROLL and Hac Farm Lines Agricultural Cooperative Association and Cyned (a/K/A Sined) Transport Corporation and Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and General Motors Corporation and Chevrolet Motor Division, General Motors Corporation and Jim McKay Chevrolet, Inc. Petition Of: Frederick W. Petroll and Hac Farm Lines Agricultural Cooperative Association and Cyned Transport Corporation
Appeal 185 MAL 2004, 186 MAL 2004.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Nov 9, 2004.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 5 opinions | Published
ORDER
PER CURIAM.AND NOW, this 9th day of November, 2004, the Petitions for Allowance of Appeal are hereby granted, limited to the following issue:
Is the Commonwealth Court’s holding that the Petroll Defendants and GM were joint tortfeasors based on general principles of products liability law, a holding which ignores that the plaintiffs’ claims were based on the crashworthiness doctrine and that the evidence established that the injuries caused by the initial impact and the uncrashworthiness of the GM vehicle were divisible in nature, a question of substance which has not been decided by this Court?