Legal Opinion

City of Philadelphia v. Spencer

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 8, 1991No. 314 C.D. 1990PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BYER, Judge.

This case proves a famous observation. “It [the value of time] is in everybody’s mouth, but in few people’s practice.” Letter from Lord Chesterfield to his son, reprinted in The New Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language pt. 2, at 127 (1971).

The defendant obtained leave of court to amend its new matter. Two years later, the defendant finally filed its amended new matter. The trial court ordered the amended new matter stricken because of this delay. We hold that the trial court abused its discretion, because the delay did not prejudice the plaintiff.

Gina Spencer…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Bata v. Central-Penn National BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
  2. In Re the Upset Sale of Properties Against Which Delinquent 1981 Taxes Were Returned to the Tax Claim Unit on or About the First Monday of May, 1982Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  3. Gutierrez v. Pennsylvania Gas & Water Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  4. Hull v. TolentinoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  5. Mineo v. TanciniSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. M.A. Robinson v. Officer FyeCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2018
  2. Atkins v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  3. Glover v. SEPTACommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  4. Mistick Inc. v. City of PittsburghCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  5. Ross v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2004

6 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