Holmes v. Broodno
This text of 294 A.2d 903 (Holmes v. Broodno) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Holmes
v.
Broodno, Appellant.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Before WRIGHT, P.J., WATKINS, JACOBS, HOFFMAN, SPAULDING, CERCONE, and PACKEL, JJ.
*479 Thomas Holmes Goldsmith, for appellant.
Arthur J. Seidner, and Jerome Taylor and Associates, for appellee.
OPINION BY PACKEL, J., September 15, 1972:
The quashing of the appeal is reversed for reasons stated in Meta v. Yellow Cab Company of Philadelphia, 222 Pa. Superior Ct. 469, 294 A. 2d 898 (1972).
DISSENTING OPINION BY HOFFMAN, J.:
I dissent for the same reasons as set forth in my opinion in Meta v. Yellow Cab Company of Philadelphia, 222 Pa. Superior Ct. 469, 294 A. 2d 898 (1972).
WATKINS and JACOBS, JJ., join in this dissenting opinion.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
294 A.2d 903, 222 Pa. Super. 478, 1972 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holmes-v-broodno-pasuperct-1972.