From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hackney v. Woodring

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Dec 30, 1994
539 Pa. 266 (Pa. 1994)

Summary

reversing Superior Court's holding that expert medical testimony was not required to show intentional infliction of emotional distress

Summary of this case from Paves v. Corson

Opinion

Argued December 6, 1994.

Decided December 30, 1994.

Appeal No. 107 M.D. Appeal Dkt. 1993 from Order of Superior Court, 424 Pa. Super. 96, 622 A.2d 286 (1993), entered January 25, 1993, at No. 778 Harrisburg 1991, Reversing Order of Court of Common Pleas of York County, Civil Division, entered November 21, 1991, at No. 91-NO-02238-03 and Remanding Case.

Audrey E. Woloshin, York, for J. Woodring.

Robert D. Glessner, York, for R.Y. Hackney.

Before NIX, C.J., and FLAHERTY, ZAPPALA, CAPPY, CASTILLE and MONTEMURO, JJ.


ORDER


Order of Superior Court reversed. See Kazatsky v. King David Memorial Park, Inc., 515 Pa. 183, 527 A.2d 988 (1987).

PAPADAKOS, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

MONTEMURO, J., is sitting by designation.


Summaries of

Hackney v. Woodring

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Dec 30, 1994
539 Pa. 266 (Pa. 1994)

reversing Superior Court's holding that expert medical testimony was not required to show intentional infliction of emotional distress

Summary of this case from Paves v. Corson
Case details for

Hackney v. Woodring

Case Details

Full title:Renee Y. HACKNEY v. John O. WOODRING, Jr., Lipco, Inc., t/d/b/a Little…

Court:Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Dec 30, 1994

Citations

539 Pa. 266 (Pa. 1994)
652 A.2d 291

Citing Cases

Kovalev v. City of Phila.

For example, in Hackney v. Woodring, the Pennsylvania Superior Court noted the defendant-employer held a…

Williams v. Gilgallon

"In addition to these substantive requirements, Pennsylvania courts have also established an evidentiary…