From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Grady v. Frito-Lay, Inc.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Western District
Jun 28, 2002
569 Pa. 46 (Pa. 2002)

Opinion

June 28, 2002.

No. 65 WAL 2002, Petition for Allowance of Appeal from Order of the Superior Court.

John A. Robb, Robb, Leonard Mulvihill, Pittsburg, for Frito-Lay, Inc., a foreign corporations, Petitioner.

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


ORDER


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. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), on the analysis of this issue.

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


Summaries of

Grady v. Frito-Lay, Inc.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Western District
Jun 28, 2002
569 Pa. 46 (Pa. 2002)
Case details for

Grady v. Frito-Lay, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:CARL R. GRADY AND DIANA GRADY, HIS WIFE, Respondents v. FRITO-LAY, INC., A…

Court:Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Western District

Date published: Jun 28, 2002

Citations

569 Pa. 46 (Pa. 2002)
800 A.2d 294

Citing Cases

Trach v. Fellin

Thus, even though the Daubert court abandoned Frye, it recognized that Frye was limited to novel scientific…