Legal Opinion

Marra v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 28, 2001PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKelly, J.

¶ 1 In this appeal we must decide whether a plaintiff may voluntarily discontinue a case where the discontinuance ultimately allows the plaintiff to avoid a previous jury trial waiver. We hold that under the applicable rules of civil procedure, a plaintiff may voluntarily discontinue a case so long as the discontinuance does not subject any party to unreasonable inconvenience, vexation, harassment, expense, or prejudice, even where the effect of the discontinuance is to avoid a previous jury trial waiver. Accordingly, we affirm.

¶ 2 The trial court set out the relevant facts and procedural…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Fancsali v. University Health CenterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  2. McCrory v. AbrahamSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  3. Williams Studio Division of Photography Ex Rel. Tallas, Inc. v. Nationwide Mutual Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  4. Truesdale v. Albert Einstein Medical CenterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2001

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Kunkle, E. v. Poydence, R. v. Vince, C.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
  2. Milstein, D. v. Tower at Oak HillSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
  3. PHH Mortgage Corp. v. Taggart, K.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2022
  4. Trident Mortgage v. CrossCountry MortgageSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2022
  5. Wallace, S. v. Community Education CentersSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2017

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API