Legal Opinion

Piehl v. City of Philadelphia

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 28, 2009No. 5 EAP 2008PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

Justice BAER.

We granted allowance of appeal in this case to determine whether the Commonwealth Court erred by reversing the trial court and concluding that it should have permitted the Appellees, Linda and William Piehl (hereinafter “Piehls”), plaintiffs below, to amend the caption to their complaint alleging negligence against the City of Philadelphia and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania after the statute of limitations had expired to include the Department of Transportation where, in the caption, the complaint named only the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania generally as a defendant, but…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Connor v. Allegheny General HospitalSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  2. Bata v. Central-Penn National BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
  3. Saracina v. CotoiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
  4. Paulish v. BakaitisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
  5. Gozdonovic v. Pleasant Hills Realty Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1947

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

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Cogley v. DuncanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
  2. Robert M. McCord, in his official capacity as the Treasurer of the Commonwealth of PA v. Pennsylvanians for Union Reform, and Simon Campbell, PresidentCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
  3. 1500 Corp. v. Macri Concrete, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2024
  4. Adams, J. v. Reese, D.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
  5. Antantis, W. v. Kolarosky, P.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2020

18 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