Whalen v. Bayer Corp.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Whalen v. Bayer Corp.

36 A.3d 587, 614 Pa. 309, 2012 WL 284519, 2012 Pa. LEXIS 212

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided February 1, 2012·No. 123 EM 2011·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 1st day of February, 2012, as Petitioners’ Amended Application for Exercise of King’s Bench Powers or Extraordinary Jurisdiction replaced the initial Application for Exercise of King’s Bench Powers or Extraordinary Jurisdiction, the initial Application for Exercise of King’s Bench Powers or Extraordinary Jurisdiction is DISMISSED. Additionally, the Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief and the Motion for Leave to Supplement Application are GRANTED. *310 Furthermore, the Amended Application for Exercise of King’s Bench Powers or Extraordinary Jurisdiction is DENIED. Finally, the Motion for Consolidation is DISMISSED AS MOOT.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 1st day of February, 2012, as Petitioners’ Amended Application for Exercise of King’s Bench Powers or Extraordinary Jurisdiction replaced the initial Application for Exercise of King’s Bench Powers or Extraordinary Jurisdiction, the initial Application for Exercise of King’s Bench Powers or Extraordinary Jurisdiction is DISMISSED. Additionally, the Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief and the Motion for Leave to Supplement Application are GRANTED. *310 Furthermore, the Amended Application for Exercise of King’s Bench Powers or Extraordinary Jurisdiction is DENIED. Finally, the Motion for Consolidation is DISMISSED AS MOOT.

Whalen v. Bayer Corp., 36 A.3d 587, 614 Pa. 309, 2012 WL 284519, 2012 Pa. LEXIS 212 (Pa. 2012).

Pincite

36 A.3d 587 (Whalen v. Bayer Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.