Legal Opinion

Kincy v. Petro

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 17, 2010No. 16 EAP 2009PublishedCited by 42 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

Justice TODD.

In this appeal, we consider the effect of a trial court order purporting to consolidate, under Rule 213(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, two separate actions involving different parties and different theories of liability “for all *526purposes.” For reasons discussed below, we conclude that such an order does not result in the complete consolidation of such actions, such that the pleadings are merged and/or the actions shed their separate identities. Accordingly, we affirm the Superior Court’s order affirming the trial court’s grant of a compulsory nonsuit…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Connor v. Allegheny General HospitalSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  2. Azinger v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
  3. Tork-Hiis v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  4. Mosside Associates, Ltd. v. Zoning Hearing BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  5. Roznowski v. PA. NAT. MUT. CAS. INS. CO.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985

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

3Cited by42 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. PorterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
  2. In re Activision Blizzard, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  3. Charlot v. Ecolab, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2015
  4. Commonwealth v. SabulaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
  5. Morrison Informatics, Inc. v. Members 1st Federal Credit UnionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2016

37 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