Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 2016–2026 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
DeArmitt v. New York Life Insurancegreen2 sentences2025Co., 73 A.3d 578, 595 (Pa. Super. 2013) (stating that “[t]he Nanty–Glo rule means the party moving for summary judgment may not rely solely upon its own testimonial affidavits or depositions, or those of its witnesses, to establish the non-existence of genuine issues of material fact[,]” and that “[w]hen there is uncertainty surrounding a conceded fact, it is the role of the . . . fact[-]finder to determine which facts have been adequately prove[n] and which must be rejected”) (discussing, inter alia, Borough of Nanty-Glo v. American Surety Co. of New York, 163 A. 523 (Pa. 1932)) (some citatio 2025Co., 73 A.3d 578, 595 (Pa. Super. 2013) (stating that “[t]he Nanty–Glo rule means the party moving for summary judgment may not rely solely upon its own testimonial affidavits or depositions, or those of its witnesses, to establish the non-existence of genuine issues of material fact[,]” and that “[w]hen there is uncertainty surrounding a conceded fact, it is the role of the . . . fact[-]finder to determine which facts have been adequately prove[n] and which must be rejected”) (discussing, inter alia, Borough of Nanty-Glo v. American Surety Co. of New York, 163 A. 523 (Pa. 1932)) (some citatio | 3 | 3 |
Lineberger v. Wyethgreen2 sentences2020Additionally, the Nanty–Glo rule prohibits summary judgment “where the moving party relies exclusively on oral testimony, either through testimonial affidavits or deposition testimony, to establish the absence of a genuine issue of material fact except where the moving party supports the motion by using admissions of the opposing party or the opposing party’s own witness.” Lineberger, 894 A.2d at 149 (emphasis added). 2020See Lineberger v. Wyeth, 894 A.2d 141, 149 (Pa. Super. 2006) (“The Nanty– Glo rule prohibits summary judgment ‘where the moving party relies We take the following factual background and procedural history from the trial courts’ opinions and our independent review of the certified record. | 2 | 2 |
Dudley v. USX Corp.green2 sentences2025“The Nanty–Glo rule means ‘the party moving for summary judgment may not rely solely upon its own testimonial affidavits or depositions, or those of its witnesses, to establish the non-existence of genuine issues of material fact.’” Id. (quoting Dudley v. USX Corp., 606 A.2d 916, 918 (Pa.Super. 1992), appeal denied, 532 Pa. 663 , 616 A.2d 985 (1992)). 2025“The Nanty–Glo rule means ‘the party moving for summary judgment may not rely solely upon its own testimonial affidavits or depositions, or those of its witnesses, to establish the non-existence of genuine issues of material fact.’” Id. (quoting Dudley v. USX Corp., 606 A.2d 916, 918 (Pa.Super. 1992), appeal denied, 532 Pa. 663 , 616 A.2d 985 (1992)). | 1 | 2 |
Kniaz v. Benton Boroughgreen1 sentence2026Nevertheless, “[t]he Nanty[-]Glo rule does not preclude the grant of summary judgment when the moving party relies on the testimonial evidence of an adverse party.” Kniaz v. Benton Borough, 642 A.2d 551, 553 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994). | 1 | 1 |
Woodford, M., Aplts. v. PA Insurance Dept.green1 sentence2024However, under the Nanty- 12 Glo rule, this Court may not rely on testimonial evidence alone, even if uncontested, to grant summary relief because it presents matters of credibility for the factfinder. 163 A. at 524 ; Woodford, 243 A.3d at 70; Krentz, 910 A.2d at 37 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Penn Center House, Inc. v. Hoffman
green
2 sentences2025In Penn Center House, Inc. v. Hoffman, 553 A.2d 900 (Pa. 1989), our Supreme Court explained: “The Nanty–Glo rule means that [t]estimonial affidavits of the moving party or his witnesses, not documentary, even if uncontradicted, will not afford sufficient basis for the entry of summary judgment, since the credibility of the testimony is still a matter for the jury.” Id. at 176 (emphasis added). 2024Summary relief “cannot[] be used to provide for trial by affidavits or trial by depositions.” Hoffman, 553 A.2d at 902 . | 3 | 2020–2025 |
Nanty-Glo Boro. v. American Surety Co.
green
2 sentences2025Co., 73 A.3d 578, 595 (Pa. Super. 2013) (stating that “[t]he Nanty–Glo rule means the party moving for summary judgment may not rely solely upon its own testimonial affidavits or depositions, or those of its witnesses, to establish the non-existence of genuine issues of material fact[,]” and that “[w]hen there is uncertainty surrounding a conceded fact, it is the role of the . . . fact[-]finder to determine which facts have been adequately prove[n] and which must be rejected”) (discussing, inter alia, Borough of Nanty-Glo v. American Surety Co. of New York, 163 A. 523 (Pa. 1932)) (some citatio 2025Co., 73 A.3d 578, 595 (Pa. Super. 2013) (stating that “[t]he Nanty–Glo rule means the party moving for summary judgment may not rely solely upon its own testimonial affidavits or depositions, or those of its witnesses, to establish the non-existence of genuine issues of material fact[,]” and that “[w]hen there is uncertainty surrounding a conceded fact, it is the role of the . . . fact[-]finder to determine which facts have been adequately prove[n] and which must be rejected”) (discussing, inter alia, Borough of Nanty-Glo v. American Surety Co. of New York, 163 A. 523 (Pa. 1932)) (some citatio | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Krentz v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
green
1 sentence2024However, under the Nanty- 12 Glo rule, this Court may not rely on testimonial evidence alone, even if uncontested, to grant summary relief because it presents matters of credibility for the factfinder. 163 A. at 524 ; Woodford, 243 A.3d at 70; Krentz, 910 A.2d at 37 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Bremmer v. Protected Home Mutual Life Insurance
green
2 sentences2016Life Insurance Co., 436 Pa. 494 , 260 A.2d 785 (1970)[.] The rule provides that, “[h]owever clear and indisputable may be the proof when it depends on oral testimony, it is nevertheless the province of the jury to decide, under instructions from the court, as to the law applicable to the facts[.]” Nanty–Glo, [163 A.] at 524. 2016Life Insurance Co., 436 Pa. 494 , 260 A.2d 785 (1970)[.] The rule provides that, “[h]owever clear and indisputable may be the proof when it depends on oral testimony, it is nevertheless the province of the jury to decide, under instructions from the court, as to the law applicable to the facts[.]” Nanty–Glo, [163 A.] at 524. | 1 | 2016–2016 |