Legal Opinion

Francisco v. Ford Motor Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 12, 1990No. 00060PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BECK, Judge:

The issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in granting the plaintiffs’ motion to strike the defendant’s answer and new matter, where the answer and new matter was filed three years and nine months after the plaintiffs filed their complaint. We find that the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion in granting the plaintiffs’ motion to strike and, therefore, affirm that ruling.

Charles Francisco and Cecilia Francisco filed a complaint on October 10, 1985, against Hertz Penske Truck Leasing, Inc. (“Hertz”) 1 for injuries which were allegedly caused by an automobile…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Paulish v. BakaitisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
  2. Fisher v. HillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  3. American Bank & Trust Co. v. Ritter, Todd & HaayenSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  4. Urban v. UrbanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  5. Allison v. MerrisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. McElroy v. StateSupreme Court of Iowa · 2001
  2. Garcia v. SavageSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  3. Peters Creek Sanitary Authority v. WelchSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
  4. Gale v. Mercy Catholic Medical Center Eastwick, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  5. Weaver v. MartinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1995

10 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