Legal Opinion · Dissent

Ribinicky v. Yerex

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 24, 1997No. 0167, 0168 M.D. Appeal Docket 1996Published

1DissentCappy, Justice

I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision.

The question accepted by this court for review is whether section 333 of the JARA Continuation Act of 1980(JCA), Act of October 5, 1980, P.L. 693, as amended, 42 P.S. § 20043,1 the statutory venue provision governing actions for claims brought against local agencies, applies to the situation where a local agency is joined as an additional defendant or applies only to the situation where the local agency is an original defendant in the action. The majority holds that section 333 of the JCA applies in both instances. I disagree and would…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Cheeseman v. Lethal Exterminator, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  2. Chen v. Philadelphia Electric Co.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  3. Chen v. Philadelphia Electric Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1996

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

Powered by the Exa API