Legal Opinion

Baraonfski v. Malone

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 10, 1952No. Appeal, 193PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mb. Chief Justice Horace Stern,

There are two reasons why the defendant in this case was not entitled to have the judgment opened which had been entered against him by default. The one is that he did not establish any adequate excuse for his failure to appear and defend the action. The other is that he failed to make timely application for the relief which he sought.

It appears from the scanty record presented to us on this appeal that plaintiff, having been struck by an automobile driven by defendant, brought the present action for damages on June 4, 1951, that defendant was…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. King v. BrooksSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1873
  2. Pinsky v. MasterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
  3. Breden v. GillilandSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1871
  4. Quaker City Chocolate & Confectionery Co. v. Warnock Building Ass'nSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1943
  5. Brown & Bigelow, Inc. v. BorishSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1949

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. BALK v. Ford Motor Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
  2. Queen City Electrical Supply Co. v. Soltis Electric Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  3. Cason v. SmithSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1958
  4. Hersch v. ClapperSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  5. Samuel Jacobs Distributors, Inc. v. Conditioned Air, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1973

12 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