McMonagle v. Allstate Insurance
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
Per Curiam,
Order affirmed.
Opinion by Jacobs, J., In Support op the Order Per Curiam:
I would affirm the dismissal by the lower court of appellant’s class action on the basis that it did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the class action.
It is clear that Pa. R. O. P. 2230(a), which authorizes the commencement of class actions, was based upon Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The note to Pa. R. C. P. 2230(a) discloses that “[tjhis subdivision adopts the practice under . . . F.R.C.P. No. 23(a)____” In 1966, Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 was substantially changed. In my opinion…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Eisen v. Carlisle & JacquelinCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1968
- Julius Nagler v. Admiral CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1957
- York v. Guaranty Trust Co. of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1944
- Oppenheimer v. F. J. Young & Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1944
- Robinson Township School District v. HoughtonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Bell v. Beneficial Consumer Discount Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
- Janicik v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
- Lilian v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
- LUITWEILER v. Northchester Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
- Billig v. SkvarlaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.