Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Delaware River Port Authority

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Delaware River Port Authority

864 A.2d 1200, 581 Pa. 271, 2004 Pa. LEXIS 3202

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedDecember 28, 2004

DocketAppeal No. 359 EAL 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 864 A.2d 1200 (Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Delaware River Port Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Delaware River Port Authority, 864 A.2d 1200, 581 Pa. 271, 2004 Pa. LEXIS 3202 (Pa. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

[272]*272 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 28th day of December 2004, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal in the above captioned matter is GRANTED in part, the Superior Court judgment is VACATED, and the matter is REMANDED for the Superior Court to consider the reviewability and merits of the following two claims, which do not appear to have been addressed in its memorandum decision:

(1) Whether a hearsay declarant is “unavailable,” for purposes of Pa.R.E. 804, merely by virtue of his membership in a witness protection program, and if not, whether proof sufficient to otherwise satisfy the definition of “unavailability” was, in fact, offered by the proponent of that declarant’s testimony in this case?

(2) Whether the terms of the parties’ agreement should be interpreted to require indemnification under the instant circumstances, where the loss allegedly occurred during storage?

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

[272]*272 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 28th day of December 2004, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal in the above captioned matter is GRANTED in part, the Superior Court judgment is VACATED, and the matter is REMANDED for the Superior Court to consider the reviewability and merits of the following two claims, which do not appear to have been addressed in its memorandum decision:

(1) Whether a hearsay declarant is “unavailable,” for purposes of Pa.R.E. 804, merely by virtue of his membership in a witness protection program, and if not, whether proof sufficient to otherwise satisfy the definition of “unavailability” was, in fact, offered by the proponent of that declarant’s testimony in this case?

(2) Whether the terms of the parties’ agreement should be interpreted to require indemnification under the instant circumstances, where the loss allegedly occurred during storage?

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

864 A.2d 1200, 581 Pa. 271, 2004 Pa. LEXIS 3202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/consolidated-rail-corp-v-delaware-river-port-authority-pa-2004.