Legal Opinion

Stoltz v. Datascope Corp.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 18, 1990No. 2414PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HOFFMAN, Judge:

This case is before us on remand from our Supreme Court and concerns the opening of a default judgment. Appellants contend that the court below abused its discretion in opening the default judgment because (a) appellee failed to take depositions in accordance with Pa.R.Civ.P. 209 and specific court order, and (b) when the petition to open and appellants’ answers are considered in light of Rule 209, appellee failed to establish a reasonable excuse for its failure to file an answer to the complaint. In a Memorandum filed May 31, 1989, we remanded to the court below to file a…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
  2. Instapak Corp. v. S. Weisbrod Lamp & Shade Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  3. Lazzarotti v. JulianoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  4. Joseph Palermo Development Corp. v. BowersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  5. Cross v. 50th Ward Community Ambulance Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. In Re GraberUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2004
  2. Kennedy v. Spiegel, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County1995

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

Powered by the Exa API