Legal Opinion

Morra v. Ragheb

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County

Decided May 13, 1996No. GD93-2158Published

1Opinion of the Court

WETTICK, J.,

Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss for lack of docket activity and requests that a rule issue to show cause why this motion should not be granted. Plaintiffs contend that I should dismiss the motion because it does not set forth prima facie grounds for relief. Pa.R.C.P. 206.5.

Defendant’s motion for the entry of a judgment of non pros is based on the decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Penn Piping Inc. v. Insurance Company of North America, 529 Pa. 350, 603 A.2d 1006 (1992), which held that a trial court may dismiss an action where (1) the plaintiff has shown a…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Lamp v. HeymanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
  2. Penn Piping, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  3. Pennridge Electric, Inc. v. Souderton Area Joint School AuthoritySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  4. Mudd v. Nosker Lumber, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  5. Pine Township Water Co. v. Felmont Oil Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1993

7 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