Crockford, D. et al v. Nat'l Starch & Chemical Co. (concurring memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-A11040-13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37 DAWN CROCKFORD AND KEITH CROCKFORD, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS OF B.C., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellants v. NATIONAL STARCH AND CHEMICAL CO. Appellee No. 931 MDA 2012 Appeal from the Judgment Entered of April 26, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Civil Division at No(s): 3762-C of 2004 BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., WECHT, J., and COLVILLE, J.* CONCURRING MEMORANDUM BY WECHT, J.: FILED JUNE 06, 2013 I concur in the learned Majority s decision to affirm in this case. Unlike the Majority, I do not believe that Appellants have waived their argument by failing (in the Majority s view) to provide legal analysis or appropriate citation (see Majority Memorandum at 3). I believe that Appellants have advanced an argument that is legally sufficient to enable a merits review. Upon such review, I do, however, concur in the Majority s result, given our highly deferential standard of review in cases where a trial court has denied ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-A11040-13 a weight of the evidence challenge made to a jury verdict. Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000). -2- See generally
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
