Legal Opinion

Robert Half International Inc. v. Marlton Technologies, Inc.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 20, 2006PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION BY GANTMAN, J.:

¶ 1 Appellant, Robert Half International Inc. (“RHI”), asks us to determine whether the Court of Common Pleas had jurisdiction to enter a judgment of non pros against RHI for failing to appear for the scheduled compulsory arbitration hearing on its complaint against Appellee, Marlton Technologies, Inc. (“Marlton”). RHI also challenges the court’s jurisdiction over Marlton’s counterclaim, through a Rule 1303(b)(2) proceeding, to enter judgment against RHI on Marlton’s counterclaim. We hold the trial court erred when it proceeded on Marlton’s counterclaim by operation of…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Kripp v. KrippSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  2. In Re MelograneSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  3. MCI Worldcom, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  4. James J. Gory Mechanical Contracting, Inc. v. Philadelphia Housing AuthoritySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  5. Coleman v. ColemanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. McManamon v. WashkoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  2. Step Plan Services, Inc. v. KoreskoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
  3. Mastrocola v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation AuthorityCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
  4. Roman, B. v. McGuire MemorialSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
  5. In the Interest of B.L.J.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2007

12 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