Search for: "Ford v. Superior Court" Results 1 - 20 of 237
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Aug 2012, 10:43 am by Daniel E. Cummins
(Opinion by Ford Elliot, P.J.E.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed a variation of the Sackett-type issues and the application of 75 Pa. [read post]
11 May 2017, 5:00 am by Daniel E. Cummins
For the Pennsylvania Superior Court’s latest pronouncement on Sackett issues pertaining to stacking of insurance coverage, see the case of Pergolese v. [read post]
8 Jul 2014, 12:25 pm
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania was recently tasked with determining whether the decision by the state supreme court in Betz v. [read post]
3 Jan 2019, 5:39 am by admin
January 3, 2019 In a recent case handed down by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in Rebuck v. [read post]
3 Feb 2015, 4:00 am by Daniel E. Cummins
The Pennsylvania Superior Court revisited the Trivial Defect Doctrine most recently in the case of Reinoso v. [read post]
27 Jan 2013, 9:38 am by Omar Ha-Redeye
The Divisional Court of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford on Friday in Magder v. [read post]
27 Jun 2016, 5:00 am by Daniel E. Cummins
   Anyone wishing to review a copy of this non-precedential decision by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in the case of Pusey v. [read post]
7 Jan 2016, 12:12 pm by Daniel E. Cummins
Tort Talkers may recall that, in what may be one of the first trial court opinions to apply the new products liability analysis enunciated in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in Tincher v. [read post]
13 Nov 2013, 6:00 am by Daniel E. Cummins
(Opinion by Ford Elliot, EPJ), the Pennsylvania Superior Court upheld the UIM carrier’s decision to deny coverage to the Claimant under his parent’s UIM policy based upon the residency issue. [read post]
30 Jan 2017, 5:00 am by Daniel E. Cummins
(Op. by Stevens, P.J.E.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed the Plaintiff’s claims that the trial court erred in refusing to allow a jury to decide as fact-finder whether wet concrete is a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the consumer pursuant to the standard set forth in Tincher v. [read post]