Skip to main content

Liles v. Balmer

Citations

  • 653 A.2d 1237
  • 439 Pa. Super. 238
  • 1994 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3778

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • noting that an individual who was not party to action is not aggrieved by the trial court order and has no standing to appeal
  • discussing L. Packel & A. Poulin, Pennsylvania Evidence § 801.3 regarding non-hearsay “state of mind” testimony
  • discussing L. Packel & A. Poulin, Pennsylvania Evidence § 801.3 regarding non-hearsay ‘state of mind’ testimony
  • stating, “it is the contents of the motion and not its caption which is controlling”
  • permitting nonsuit after preclusion of key testimony because plaintiff “had no remaining competent and relevant evidence to present on the issues of negligence and causation ... [and her] case was essentially complete prior to the entry of nonsuit”
  • stating: \everyone whose name appears in the caption of a praecipe for writ of summons is not necessarily a party to the action; parties to an action are those who are named as such in the record and are properly served with process or enter an appearance\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Beck, Hudock, Brosky

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

23 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.