History
  • No items yet
midpage
Grady v. Frito-Lay, Inc.
569 Pa. 46
| Pa. | 2002
|
Check Treatment
800 A.2d 294 (2002)

Carl R. GRADY and Diana Grady, his Wife, Respondents
v.
FRITO-LAY, INC., a Foreign Corporation, Petitioner.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

June 28, 2002.

John A. Robb, Robb, Leonard & Mulvihill, Pittsburgh, for Frito-Lay, Inc., a foreign corporation, Petitioner.

John P. Joyce, Joyce & Joyce, Pittsburg, for Carl R. Grady et al., Respondents.

Prior report: 789 A.2d 735.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 28th day of June, 2002, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is granted, limited to the following issue.

Whether the Superior Court, en banc, correctly applied the law when it reversed the decision of the trial court to preclude Dr. Charles S. Beroes' expert testimony.

The parties are directed to address the effect of Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923), and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), on the analysis of this issue.

Justice EAKIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Case Details

Case Name: Grady v. Frito-Lay, Inc.
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Date Published: Jun 28, 2002
Citation: 569 Pa. 46
Docket Number: Petition 65 WAL 2002
Court Abbreviation: Pa.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.