GOODMAN BY GOODMAN v. Pizzutillo
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
KELLY, Judge.
In this appeal, we are called upon to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion when it granted a motion to dismiss a complaint on the grounds of forum non conveniens, and whether the court erred when it denied: preliminary objections, which were based on lack of in personam jurisdiction; motions for reconsideration of the denial of the preliminary objections; and a motion for summary judgment. Under the facts of this case, we hold that the trial court did abuse its discretion when it dismissed the complaint on the grounds of forum non conveniens. We conclude that…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Okkerse v. HoweSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
- Plum v. Tampax, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1960
- Rini v. New York Central RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
- Norman v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
- Daywalt v. Montgomery HospitalSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Caron v. Reliance InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
- Borger v. MurphySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
- D'ALTERIO v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
- Poley v. Delmarva Power and Light Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
- Jones v. BORDEN, INC., IND.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.