Legal Opinion · Dissent

Robert Half International Inc. v. Marlton Technologies, Inc.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 20, 2006Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION BY

BENDER, J.:

¶ 1 I respectfully dissent. As the Majority describes, RHI filed its complaint on September 4, 2002, asserting breach of contract and seeking $35,000 in unpaid consulting fees from Marlton. The following day, the Prothonotary properly assigned the case to compulsory arbitration pursuant to the plain language of the following applicable law.5 First, 42 Pa.C.S. § 7361 indicates that “where the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs” is $50,000 or less, the matter “shall first be submitted to and heard by a board of three members of the bar of the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Kmonk-Sullivan v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  2. Koken v. Reliance InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  3. Emporium Area Joint School Authority v. Anundson Construction & Building Supply Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1960
  4. In Re HancockSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  5. Ice City, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974

4 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