Legal Opinion
Rosen v. Rucker
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided June 18, 1990No. Nos. 89-1583, 89-1798, 89-1765 and 89-1818PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.
I
Introduction
On this appeal, the defendants challenge the district court’s award to the successful plaintiff of delay damages pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238. Defendants claim the award was improper because they made an oral settlement offer, the plaintiffs’ settlement demand was unreasonably high, the plaintiffs did not disclose the full extent of their claims before trial, and the plaintiffs allegedly delayed the trial. The issues presented require us to delve into the effect of the revisions to Rule 238.
II
Facts and Procedural…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Perez v. LedesmaSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Osterneck v. Ernst & WhinneySupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Laudenberger v. Port Auth. of AlleghenySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
- Monessen Southwestern Railway Co. v. MorganSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Savarese v. AgrissCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1989
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Jerry Keith and Connie Keith v. Truck Stops Corporation of America, John Doe or John Doe Inc. Appeal of Truckstops of America CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1990
- Thomas F. BANE, Appellant v. NETLINK, INC.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1991
- Yohannon v. Keene Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1991
- Ponzini v. PrimeCare Medical, Inc.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2017
- CTC Imports & Exports v. Nigerian Petroleum Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1991
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.