Holmes v. Broodno
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Holmes v. Broodno, 222 Pa. Super. 478 (1972)
294 A.2d 903; 1972 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1312
Wright, P.J., Watkins, Jacobs, Hoffman, Spaulding, Cercone, and Packel
Holmes v. Broodno
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.
Reference
- Cited By
- 6 cases
- Status
- Published