Legal Opinion

Szymanski v. Dotey

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 11, 2012PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION BY

FITZGERALD, J.:

Appellant, David G. Szymanski, appeals pro se from the judgment entered in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas, following the denial of his post-trial motion. He challenges the trial court’s decision not to grant him a new trial after entering judgment in favor of Appellees, Robert Dotey and Sherry Jenkins, following his failure to appear. We hold that under the unique facts of this case, a presumption of receipt of the notice scheduling trial is not established when a party seeking to invoke the mailbox rule has failed to demonstrate a presumption of mailing of…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Ecksel v. Orleans Construction Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  2. Meierdierck v. MILLERSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
  3. Mastroni-Mucker v. Allstate InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
  4. Estate of BrownSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
  5. Commonwealth v. ThomasSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. C.E. v. Department of Public WelfareCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  2. C.E. v. DPWCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  3. Com. v. Paul, M.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
  4. Estate of Gregg A. SchwotzerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2021
  5. Kennedy, S. v. K&J ConstructionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2016

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API