Oliver v. City of Pittsburgh
987 A.2d 680, 605 Pa. 72, 2009 Pa. LEXIS 2778
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedDecember 29, 2009
Docket363 WAL 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases
This text of 987 A.2d 680 (Oliver v. City of Pittsburgh) 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
Oliver v. City of Pittsburgh, 987 A.2d 680, 605 Pa. 72, 2009 Pa. LEXIS 2778 (Pa. 2009).
Opinion
ORDER
AND NOW, this 29th day of December, 2009, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issues set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issues, rephrased for clarity, are:
(1) In light of Section 25(b) of Act 44, does the City of Pittsburgh have a valid subrogation claim against Petitioner Cassandra Oliver’s settlement with the third party tortfeasor equal to the amount of benefits that she received under the Heart and Lung Act?
(2) Does Petitioner Cassandra Oliver have immunity from the City of Pittsburgh’s reimbursement claim under Section 23 of Act 44?
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
City of Wilkes-Barre v. Sheils
450 B.R. 76 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 2011)
Oliver v. City of Pittsburgh
11 A.3d 960 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2011)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
987 A.2d 680, 605 Pa. 72, 2009 Pa. LEXIS 2778, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oliver-v-city-of-pittsburgh-pa-2009.