Kincy v. Petro
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
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
- Connor v. Allegheny General HospitalSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
- Azinger v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
- Tork-Hiis v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
- Mosside Associates, Ltd. v. Zoning Hearing BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
- 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
- Commonwealth v. PorterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
- In re Activision Blizzard, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
- Charlot v. Ecolab, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2015
- Commonwealth v. SabulaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
- Morrison Informatics, Inc. v. Members 1st Federal Credit UnionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.