Legal Opinion

Millard v. Nagle

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 17, 1991No. 286PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DEL SOLE, Judge:1

This action was instituted by Appellants seeking to recover damages suffered as a result of an unauthorized surgical proceeding performed on Appellant, Christine Millard. Pri- or to addressing the merits of the claims raised by Appellants it is necessary to address whether this court must consider issues contained in untimely post-trial motions which the trial court elected to address.

*380POST-TRIAL MOTIONS

Prompted by the supreme court’s recent decisions on the subject, See, Kurtas v. Kurtas, 521 Pa. 105, 555 A.2d 804 (1989) and Commonwealth v. Sheaff, 518 Pa. 655, 544 A.2d 1342…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Gray v. GrunnagleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
  2. Cooper v. RobertsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
  3. Kurtas v. KurtasSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  4. Karl J. Pizzalotto, MD, Ltd. v. WilsonSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1983
  5. Sagala v. TavaresSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987

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

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. D.L. Forrey & Associates, Inc. v. Fuel City Truck Stop, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
  2. Carlos R. Leffler, Inc. v. HutterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  3. Ferguson v. MortonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
  4. MacDonald v. United StatesDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1991
  5. In Re GreistSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1994

27 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