Sturkey v. Swingle

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Sturkey v. Swingle

739 A.2d 131, 559 Pa. 52, 1999 Pa. LEXIS 3448

DecidedOctober 15, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 739 A.2d 131 (Sturkey v. Swingle) 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

Sturkey v. Swingle, 739 A.2d 131, 559 Pa. 52, 1999 Pa. LEXIS 3448 (Pa. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 15th day of October, 1999, the Petition to Reactivate the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED; the Petition for Allowance of Appeal, the Motion for Leave to Amend the Petition for Allowance of Appeal, and the Motion for Leave to File a Sur Reply to Motion to Amend Petition for Allowance of Appeal are DENIED. The Cross Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED in part and the order of the Superior Court affirming the trial court’s dismissal of Cross-Petitioner’s claim for battery is reversed. Since the issue of supervision is being remanded and may be dispositive of Cross-Petitioner’s battery claim, it is further ordered that Cross-Petitioner’s claim for battery is remanded to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County to be considered during Cross-Petitioner’s new trial as awarded by the Superior Court. Hutchison v. Sunbeam Coal Corp., 513 Pa. 192, 201, 519 A.2d 385, 390 (1986)

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 15th day of October, 1999, the Petition to Reactivate the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED; the Petition for Allowance of Appeal, the Motion for Leave to Amend the Petition for Allowance of Appeal, and the Motion for Leave to File a Sur Reply to Motion to Amend Petition for Allowance of Appeal are DENIED. The Cross Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED in part and the order of the Superior Court affirming the trial court’s dismissal of Cross-Petitioner’s claim for battery is reversed. Since the issue of supervision is being remanded and may be dispositive of Cross-Petitioner’s battery claim, it is further ordered that Cross-Petitioner’s claim for battery is remanded to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County to be considered during Cross-Petitioner’s new trial as awarded by the Superior Court. Hutchison v. Sunbeam Coal Corp., 513 Pa. 192, 201, 519 A.2d 385, 390 (1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

739 A.2d 131, 559 Pa. 52, 1999 Pa. LEXIS 3448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sturkey-v-swingle-pa-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack