Coverage note: this corpus holds the
consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check
palegis.us.
§ 5935. Examination of person adversely interested.
In any civil action or proceeding, whether or not it is brought or defended by a person
representing the interests of a deceased or lunatic assignor of any thing or contract
in action, a party to the record, or a person for whose immediate benefit such proceeding
is prosecuted or defended, or any director or other officer of a person which is a
party to the record, or for the immediate benefit of which such action or proceeding
is prosecuted or defended, or any other person whose interest is adverse to the party
calling him as a witness, may be compelled by the adverse party to testify as if under
cross-examination, subject to the rules of evidence applicable to witnesses under
cross-examination, and the adverse party calling such witnesses shall not be concluded
by his testimony, but such person so cross-examined shall become thereby a fully competent
witness for the other party as to all relevant matters whether or not these matters
were touched upon in his cross-examination, and also, where one of the several plaintiffs
or defendants, or the person for whose immediate benefit such proceeding is prosecuted
or defended, or such director or officer, or such other person having an adverse interest,
is cross-examined under this section, his coplaintiffs or codefendants, or fellow
directors or officers, shall thereby become fully competent witnesses on their own
behalf, or on behalf of the person of which they shall be directors or officers, as
to all relevant matters, whether or not these matters were touched upon in such cross-examination.
Notes of Decisions
Am. States Ins. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 628 A.2d 880 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993).
· cites it 2× “American States contends that as an employee, Sprowls is not subject to being called as if under cross-examination and cites to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5935. American States suggests that only “.”
Gaul v. Consol. Rail Corp., 556 A.2d 892 (Pa. 1989).
· cites it 2× “See 42 Pa.C.S. § 5935. The supreme court of this Commonwealth has interpreted this to mean that the interest of the witness called as on cross-examination must be involved in the suit in the sense that the judgment in the case would operate on the witness’ legal rights and…”
Taylor v. Albert Einstein Med. Ctr., 723 A.2d 1027 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998).
· cites it 2× “Trinkaus's testimony was that "in general it tends to be not very commonly used, certainly not like in internal medicine.”
Commonwealth v. Brownsville Golden Age Nursing Home Inc., 520 A.2d 926 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1987).
“Although the Judicial Code, at 42 Pa. C. S. §5935, permits a party to compel a person whose interest is adverse to the party calling him to testify as if under cross-examination, an employee of a party is ordinarily neither an adverse party nor sufficiently adversely interested…”
Appeal of Auditors v. Komanecky, 407 A.2d 906 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1979).
“42 Pa. C.S. §5935. The court below did not allow Supervisor Conway to be called as on cross-examination because of its determination that the proceeding was quasi-criminal and that he therefore had a right to refuse to testify to protect his right against self-incrimination.”
Franklin Plastics Corp. v. Dep't of Env't Resources, 657 A.2d 100 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1995).
“In its appeal to this Court, Franklin does not challenge the Board member's decision to prohibit it from calling Carlini as a witness in its case in chief or its ruling that Carlini was not an adverse witness under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5935 (a person whose interests are adverse to the…”
Kelly v. Montgomery, 22 Pa. D. & C.4th 1 (1994).
“42 Pa.C.S. §5935. Furthermore, the court must consider whether the witness’ testimony was unexpected, contradictory and harmful to the party calling the witness and beneficial to the opposing side.”
Francart v. Smith, 2 Pa. D. & C.4th 585 (1989).
“42 Pa.C.S. §5935 permits a party to call an opposing party or a witness with an adverse interest *598 and question him as if under cross-examination by virtue of the following language: “In any civil action or proceeding, whether or not it is brought or defended by a person…”
Gorfti v. Montgomery, 3 Pa. D. & C.4th 539 (1988).
“42 Pa.C.S. §5935. It is well settled that, in the absence of satisfactory contradictory evidence, a plaintiff is bound by the testimony elicited from defendant called by plaintiff as on cross-examination.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.