Caiarelli v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

9 A.3d 1134, 607 Pa. 621, 2010 Pa. LEXIS 2792

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Caiarelli v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.. Read the opinion of the Court — 616 Pa. 38 →

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided December 1, 2010·No. No. 608 WAL 2009·Published

Opinion

[623]*623 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 1st day of December, 2010, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issue, rephrased for clarity, is:

Whether the Superior Court erred in affirming the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Respondent Sears on Petitioners’ claim under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, where the trial court’s determination relied on provisions of federal law having no analogue under that Act?

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

[623]*623 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Whether the Superior Court erred in affirming the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Respondent Sears on Petitioners’ claim under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, where the trial court’s determination relied on provisions of federal law having no analogue under that Act?

Caiarelli v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 9 A.3d 1134, 607 Pa. 621, 2010 Pa. LEXIS 2792 (Pa. 2010).

Pincite

9 A.3d 1134 (Caiarelli v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.