Pentarek v. Christy

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Pentarek v. Christy

874 A.2d 1160, 583 Pa. 64, 2005 Pa. LEXIS 1282

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 17, 2005

DocketPetition No. 496 WAL 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 874 A.2d 1160 (Pentarek v. Christy) 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

Pentarek v. Christy, 874 A.2d 1160, 583 Pa. 64, 2005 Pa. LEXIS 1282 (Pa. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 17th day of June, 2005, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, limited to Mrs. Pentarek’s loss of consortium claim. That portion of the Superior Court’s decision remanding for consideration of this claim is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for retrial on Pentarek’s uncontested injuries. See Cleveland v. Johns-Manville Corp., 547 Pa. 402, 690 A.2d 1146 (1997).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 17th day of June, 2005, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, limited to Mrs. Pentarek’s loss of consortium claim. That portion of the Superior Court’s decision remanding for consideration of this claim is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for retrial on Pentarek’s uncontested injuries. See Cleveland v. Johns-Manville Corp., 547 Pa. 402, 690 A.2d 1146 (1997).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

874 A.2d 1160, 583 Pa. 64, 2005 Pa. LEXIS 1282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pentarek-v-christy-pa-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack