restricted rule in Pennsylvania

2001We turn to the case upon which the Superior Court primarily relied for its guiding premise, our decision in Baker v. Lafayette College, 516 Pa. 291 , 532 A.2d 399 (1987).

2001We turn to the case upon which the Superior Court primarily relied for its guiding premise, our decision in Baker v. Lafayette College, 516 Pa. 291 , 532 A.2d 399 (1987).

1987See Williams v. Philadelphia Transportation Co., 415 Pa. 370 , 203 A.2d 665 (1964) (trial judge has responsibility of proper conduct of trial and has wide discretion to hold examination of parties within bound); Commonwealth v. Dress, 354 Pa. 411 , 47 A.2d 197 (1946) (examination of witnesses is subject to control of trial court in whom is vested large discretion). *473 Appellant's next argument is also framed under the rubric of "the right to be heard." In this instance he complains that he was denied the right to be heard by counsel because the trial court restricted defense counsel's commen

1987See Williams v. Philadelphia Transportation Co., 415 Pa. 370 , 203 A.2d 665 (1964) (trial judge has responsibility of proper conduct of trial and has wide discretion to hold examination of parties within bound); Commonwealth v. Dress, 354 Pa. 411 , 47 A.2d 197 (1946) (examination of witnesses is subject to control of trial court in whom is vested large discretion). *473 Appellant's next argument is also framed under the rubric of "the right to be heard." In this instance he complains that he was denied the right to be heard by counsel because the trial court restricted defense counsel's commen

1984Rather than subscribe, as the majority has done, to the traditional, restricted rule which requires the employee to have express or implied authority to make the statements, I would apply the less restricted rule articulated in Carswell v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 259 Pa.Super.Ct. 167 , 393 A.2d 770 (1978), that an employee’s statement is admissible against the employer if the statement was made before the termination of the employment, concerned a matter within the scope of the employment and was accompanied by sufficient indicia of reliability.

1984Rather than subscribe, as the majority has done, to the traditional, restricted rule which requires the employee to have express or implied authority to make the statements, I would apply the less restricted rule articulated in Carswell v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 259 Pa.Super.Ct. 167 , 393 A.2d 770 (1978), that an employee’s statement is admissible against the employer if the statement was made before the termination of the employment, concerned a matter within the scope of the employment and was accompanied by sufficient indicia of reliability.

1984Watkins v. Sharon Aerie, No. 327 Fraternal Order of Eagles, 423 Pa. 396 , 223 A.2d 742 (1966), is like Murray in that there, there was no proof of agency.

1984Watkins v. Sharon Aerie, No. 327 Fraternal Order of Eagles, 423 Pa. 396 , 223 A.2d 742 (1966), is like Murray in that there, there was no proof of agency.

1966It should be noted that in all cases in which the State Department has not advised a Court of its determination of Sovereign Immunity, the determination thereof is properly a matter for the Court in the light of all the facts in that particular case: Republic of Mexico v. Hoffman, 324 U.S. 30 ; Berizzi Bros. v. S.S.

1954This court went on, however, by way of a pure gratuity, to add that “Moreover, plaintiff could have been asked on cross-examination the direct question as to what he had paid for the property [citing] Greenfield v. Phila., 282 Pa. 344 , 127 A. 768 .” Thus, what had begun as a very restricted rule in the Ilea case became, with only one case intervening (viz., Greenfield v. Philadelphia), a general rule by way of a dictum in the Luts case.

1954This court went on, however, by way of a pure gratuity, to add that “Moreover, plaintiff could have been asked on cross-examination the direct question as to what he had paid for the property [citing] Greenfield v. Phila., 282 Pa. 344 , 127 A. 768 .” Thus, what had begun as a very restricted rule in the Ilea case became, with only one case intervening (viz., Greenfield v. Philadelphia), a general rule by way of a dictum in the Luts case.