| JACQUELINE NIEVES CRUZ and OSCAR CRUZ v. PRINCETON INSURANCE COMPANY, ALAN S. GOLD, ESQUIRE and GOLD, BUTKOVITZ & ROBINS, P.C. No. 3191 and 3192 EDA 2004 2009 PA Super 49 Atlantic: 972 A.2d 14 Filed: 3/24/2009 | |
| Appeal from the Orders Dated October 18, 2004 In the Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division Philadelphia County, No. 000415 March Term 2003 | |
| Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., STEVENS, MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN, LALLY-GREEN, TODD*, BENDER, BOWES, and PANELLA, JJ. | |
| Opinion by: BENDER, J. | |
| Dissenting Opinion by: ORIE MELVIN, J. | |
| This matter comes before us on remand from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania for consideration of whether plaintiffs Jacqueline Nieves Cruz and Oscar Cruz (the Cruzes) adduced evidence sufficient to raise a question of material fact concerning the harm element of their claim for Abuse of Process. The Cruzes argue, and we conclude, that the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, does raise such a question. Accordingly, we reverse the order granting summary judgment and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings on the Cruzes’ action. | |
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
No comments:
Post a Comment