Legal Opinion

McGonigle v. Currence

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 28, 1989No. 1389PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BROSKY, Judge.

Patrick J. McGonigle and Marlene McGonigle take the present appeal from an Order dismissing their de novo appeal from the award of arbitrators because the McGonigles and their counsel failed to appear at the arbitration hearing on the former’s suit against William W. Currence and Pamela Currence, appellees herein.

On appeal, the McGonigles argue that the rules of civil procedure do not require a litigant to appear at an arbitration hearing as a condition of his right to file an appeal de novo from the award of arbitrators and that the trial court cannot, at its own discretion,…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Weber v. LynchSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  2. MacIoce v. GlinatsisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  3. Sipe v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
  4. Hall v. ReebSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Rieser v. GlukowskySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  2. Cove Centre, Inc. v. Westhafer Construction, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
  3. Municipal Authority of the Borough of Midland v. Ohioville Borough Municipal AuthorityCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
  4. Conner v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  5. Debroff v. CorrettiSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1994

8 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