Bouda v. Philadelphia

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas

Bouda v. Philadelphia

69 Pa. D. & C.2d 692, 1975 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 564

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County

DecidedMarch 17, 1975

Docketno. 250

StatusPublished

This text of 69 Pa. D. & C.2d 692 (Bouda v. Philadelphia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bouda v. Philadelphia, 69 Pa. D. & C.2d 692, 1975 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 564 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

BONAVITACOLA, J.,

This case arose out of an accident on the easterly side of State Road at or near the intersection with Pennypack Street in the City of Philadelphia. Philadelphia Electric Company, in support of its motion for summary judgment, has supplied an affidavit from Wildred H. Lawrence, the designer in charge of [693]*693maps and records for the Philadelphia Electric Company. The affidavit sets forth the facts that Philadelphia Electric Company did not own, maintain or control any facilities on the easterly side of State Road at or near the intersection with Pennypack Street. Attached to the affidavit is Philadelphia Electric Company drawing, file number 3463, which shows all Philadelphia Electric Company’s facilities in the area of State Road and Pennypack Street. Under Pa. R.C.P. 1035, a summary judgment may be entered on the basis of pleadings and supporting affidavit where there is not a genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In the instant case, where no opposing affidavits were filed as is specifically provided for in Pa. R.C.P. 1035(b) the Court, being bound by Pa. R.C.P. 1035(d), is left with no alternative but to grant the summary judgment.

Pa. R.C.P. 1035(d) states as follows:

“. . . When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If he does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him.”

ORDER

And now, March 17, 1975, upon consideration of the motion of defendant Philadelphia Electric Company with supporting affidavits thereto and memorandum of law in support thereof, it is hereby ordered and decreed that the said motion for summary judgment is granted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BONAVITACOLA, J.,

This case arose out of an accident on the easterly side of State Road at or near the intersection with Pennypack Street in the City of Philadelphia. Philadelphia Electric Company, in support of its motion for summary judgment, has supplied an affidavit from Wildred H. Lawrence, the designer in charge of [693]*693maps and records for the Philadelphia Electric Company. The affidavit sets forth the facts that Philadelphia Electric Company did not own, maintain or control any facilities on the easterly side of State Road at or near the intersection with Pennypack Street. Attached to the affidavit is Philadelphia Electric Company drawing, file number 3463, which shows all Philadelphia Electric Company’s facilities in the area of State Road and Pennypack Street. Under Pa. R.C.P. 1035, a summary judgment may be entered on the basis of pleadings and supporting affidavit where there is not a genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In the instant case, where no opposing affidavits were filed as is specifically provided for in Pa. R.C.P. 1035(b) the Court, being bound by Pa. R.C.P. 1035(d), is left with no alternative but to grant the summary judgment.

Pa. R.C.P. 1035(d) states as follows:

“. . . When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If he does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him.”

ORDER

And now, March 17, 1975, upon consideration of the motion of defendant Philadelphia Electric Company with supporting affidavits thereto and memorandum of law in support thereof, it is hereby ordered and decreed that the said motion for summary judgment is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 Pa. D. & C.2d 692, 1975 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bouda-v-philadelphia-pactcomplphilad-1975.