Grady v. Frito-Lay, Inc.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Grady v. Frito-Lay, Inc.

800 A.2d 294, 569 Pa. 46, 2002 Pa. LEXIS 1349

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided June 28, 2002·No. Petition 65 WAL 2002·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 28th day of June, 2002, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is granted, limited to the following issue.

Whether the Superior Court, en banc, correctly applied the law when it reversed the decision of the trial court to preclüde Dr. Charles S. Beroes’ expert testimony.

The parties are directed to address the effect of Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923), and Daubert v. *47 Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), on the analysis of this issue.

Justice EAKIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 28th day of June, 2002, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is granted, limited to the following issue.

Whether the Superior Court, en banc, correctly applied the law when it reversed the decision of the trial court to preclüde Dr. Charles S. Beroes’ expert testimony.

The parties are directed to address the effect of Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923), and Daubert v. *47 Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), on the analysis of this issue.

Justice EAKIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Grady v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 800 A.2d 294, 569 Pa. 46, 2002 Pa. LEXIS 1349 (Pa. 2002).

Pincite

800 A.2d 294 (Grady v. Frito-Lay, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related