Legal Opinion

Zarlinsky v. Laudenslager

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 16, 1961No. Appeals, 41 and 42PublishedCited by 76 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Jones,

This action for the recovery of damages allegedly suffered by the plaintiffs, husband and wife, as the result of a two-car automobile collision, was commenced with the filing of a praecipe for the issuance of a writ of summons in trespass against the defendant. The writ was duly issued but never served. It was not until more than two years and eight months after the action had been begun that the plaintiffs filed their complaint.

The question involved on these appeals is whether the action is barred, to the extent that damages for personal injuries are…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Prettyman v. IrwinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  2. Bovaird & Seyfang Manufacturing Co. v. FergusonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
  3. Mayo v. James Lees & Sons Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937

3Cited by76 opinions

  1. Lamp v. HeymanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
  2. McCreesh v. City of PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  3. John T. Witherow v. The Firestone Tire & Rubber Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1976
  4. Peterson v. Philadelphia Suburban Transportation Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1969
  5. Groh v. BrooksCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1970

71 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