Legal Opinion

McCreesh v. City of Philadelphia

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 28, 2005No. 31 EAP 2004PublishedCited by 108 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

Justice BAER.

We granted review in this case to clarify what constitutes a good faith effort by a plaintiff to effectuate notice to a defendant of the commencement of an action. In the seminal case of Lamp v. Heyman, 469 Pa. 465, 366 A.2d 882 (1976), this Court sought to end abuses of process by plaintiffs who tolled the statute of limitations by filing a writ of summons, had the writ repeatedly reissued, and deliberately failed to notify the defendant of the pending litigation. This process, while technically compliant with the Rules of Civil Procedure, nonetheless defeated the purpose…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Lamp v. HeymanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
  2. Bilt-Rite Contractors, Inc. v. Architectural StudioSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  3. Farinacci v. Beaver County Industrial Development AuthoritySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  4. Sharp v. Valley Forge Medical Center & Heart Hospital, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
  5. Insurance Co. of North America v. CarnahanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971

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

3Cited by108 opinions

  1. Englert v. Fazio Mechanical Services, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  2. Datto v. HarrisonDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2009
  3. Gold v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2012
  4. Fraisar v. GillisCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  5. Sayers, W. v. Heritage Valley Medical Group, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2021

103 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