Legal Opinion
Claudio v. Dean MacHine Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided February 11, 2003No. 9 EAP 2002PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Justice NEWMAN.
We granted allocatur in this case to consider whether a trial court can, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 227.1 [relating to Post-Trial Relief], conduct a post-trial evidentiary hearing and grant post-trial relief to correct an error when the error alleged is attributable, not to the court, but to the party seeking relief. For the reasons discussed herein, we hold that Rule 227.1 is not a vehicle by which a trial court can correct an error of a party.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 22, 1997, Luis Claudio (Claudio) and Sexta Claudio (Sexta), his…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Reilly v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation AuthoritySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
- Riccio v. American Republic InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
- Chalkey v. RoushSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
- Paulish v. BakaitisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
- Gozdonovic v. Pleasant Hills Realty Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Drake Manufacturing Co. v. Polyflow, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
- Lundy v. ManchelSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
- Metro Real Estate Investment, LLC v. Bembry, D.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2019
- 1004 South 25th Street Trust v. Bennett, R.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2019
- Allen v. Daniels, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County2012
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.