Case Name: Carl R. GRADY and Diana Grady, his Wife, Respondents v. FRITO-LAY, INC., a Foreign Corporation, Petitioner
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2002-06-28
Citations: 569 Pa. 46
Docket Number: Petition No. 65 WAL 2002
Parties: Carl R. GRADY and Diana Grady, his Wife, Respondents v. FRITO-LAY, INC., a Foreign Corporation, Petitioner.
Judges: 
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 569
Pages: 46–47

Head Matter:
800 A.2d 294
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.

Opinion:
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 preclüde 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.