Legal Opinion
Jacobs v. Halloran
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided April 2, 1998No. 18 E.D. Appeal Docket 1997PublishedCited by 154 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ZAPPALA, Justice.
This appeal raises significant issues regarding the standard applicable to the dismissal of a case for inactivity pursuant to a defendant’s motion for non pros. 1 For the reasons set forth herein, we hold that the equitable principles underlying the entry of a judgment of non pros must be recognized and the presumption of prejudice first enunciated in Penn Piping, Inc., v. Insurance Company of North America, 529 Pa. 350, 603 A.2d 1006 (1992), must be abandoned.
Appellant, Lisa Jacobs, was injured in an automobile collision involving a vehicle owned by Appellees, Harry…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Precision Instrument Manufacturing Co. v. Automotive Maintenance MacHinery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Penn Piping, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
- James Bros. Co. v. Union B. & T. Co. of DuBoisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
- Lutherland, Inc. v. DahlenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
- Moore v. MooreSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by154 opinions
- Holmes v. Pension Plan of Bethlehem Steel Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
- Reading Radio, Inc. v. FinkSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Sahutsky v. H.H. Knoebel SonsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
- Moses v. T.N.T. Red Star ExpressSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
- Marino v. HackmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
149 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.