Legal Opinion · Dissent

Tork-Hiis v. Commonwealth

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 2, 1998Published

1DissentMcGINLEY, Judge

I respectfully dissent. In Spencer v. Pavlik, 139 Pa.Cmwlth. 427, 590 A.2d 1342 (1991) this Court stated:

[Ojnee again ... this court ... address[es] the issue of when a pleading can be amended to change the designation of a party after the statute of limitations has run. This issue has been before us previously in three reported cases. In Hall v. Acme Markets, Inc., 110 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 199, 532 A.2d 894 (1987), we held that the Commonwealth is an entity distinct from the agencies and employees encompassed in the term ‘commonwealth party’ as defined in the immunity statute 42 Pa.C.S. §…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Hall v. ACME MARKETS, INC.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  2. Bainbridge v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  3. Garcia v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  4. Spencer v. PavlikCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  5. Gitto v. Plumstead TownshipCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1993

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

Powered by the Exa API