Legal Opinion

Simodejka v. Williams

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 29, 1948No. Appeal, 8PublishedCited by 58 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Linn,

This appeal depends on the construction of Rule 2255 of our Rules of Civil Procedure. It provides, “(a) The procedure, including pleadings, between the party adjoining an additional defendant and the additional defendant shall be the same as though the party joining the additional defendant were a plaintiff and the additional defendant were a defendant.”

One of the purposes of third party procedure is to avoid multiplicity of suits by adjudicating in one suit the rights and liabilities of all the parties to a single transaction which constitutes the cause of action.…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Wallace's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  2. Vinnacombe v. Phila. Am. S.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
  3. Fields v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  4. Rau v. MankoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
  5. Bakula v. SchwabWisconsin Supreme Court · 1918

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

3Cited by58 opinions

  1. Keitz v. National Paving & Contracting Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1957
  2. Fisher v. HillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  3. Sustrik v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
  4. London v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  5. Saber v. Supplee-Wills-Jones Milk Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1956

53 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