Legal Opinion

Scharnitzki v. Bienenfeld

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 10, 1987No. 02966PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MONTEMURO, Judge:

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company (“Hartford”) challenges the October 1, 1986 order of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas denying its petition to intervene. Because Hartford appeals from an interlocutory order, we quash this appeal.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stated that as a rule, an appeal will not lie from an order refusing leave to intervene, because such an order is not a final one[. However], cases may arise where a denial of a petition to intervene would be a practical denial of relief to which the petitioner for intervention is entitled and can obtain…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Frey's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
  2. M. London, Inc. v. Fedders Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  3. Harmon v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1970
  4. Boise Cascade Corp. v. East Stroudsburg Savings Ass'nSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  5. Haas v. Mid-America Fire & Marine InsuranceAppellate Court of Illinois · 1976

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Stenger v. Lehigh Valley Hospital CenterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  2. In Re Estate of AlbrightSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  3. Egenrieder v. Ohio Casualty GroupSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  4. Cutting Edge Tree Professionals, LLC v. State Farm Fire Claims CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2024
  5. Stenger v. Lehigh Valley Hospital CenterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989

2 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