Legal Opinion

Forrester v. Hanson

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 9, 2006PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION BY GANTMAN, J.:

¶ 1 Appellant, Kenneth G. Forrester, asks us to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion when it transferred this case to Montgomery County, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1006(a.l). Appellant also challenges the trial court’s order which granted the motion for leave to file joinder complaint filed by Appellees, Michael Hanson and Sea Gull Lighting Co. We hold Rule 1006(a.l) does not apply to the instant case, and the trial court misapplied the law when it transferred the matter to Montgomery County. We further hold that this Court has…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Wood v. EI Du Pont De Nemours and Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  2. Connor v. Crozer Keystone Health SystemSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  3. Tohan v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  4. Bender v. Pennsylvania Insurance DepartmentCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  5. North-Central Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Ass'n ex rel. Humphrey v. WeaverCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2003

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

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. LSI Title Agency, Inc. v. Evaluation Services, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
  2. Sehl v. NeffSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
  3. O'HARA v. First Liberty Ins. Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
  4. Hutchison Ex Rel. Hutchison v. LuddySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
  5. Bardo, B. v. State Farm Mutual and Ferreira, C.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2021

23 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