Legal Opinion

Conover v. Mikosky

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 5, 1992No. 1664PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DEL SOLE, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order denying Appellant permission to proceed in forma pauperis. We affirm the trial court’s decision.

Appellant claims that he was awarded a certain sum of money in a settlement and that the named defendants have conspired to deprive him of the proceeds from that settlement. The trial court examined Appellant’s complaint and his Motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction and concluded that the claims set forth in Appellant’s complaint were frivolous. Accordingly, the trial court ordered that Appellant should not be permitted to…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Neitzke v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  2. Bell v. Beneficial Consumer Discount Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  3. Praisner v. StockerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  4. Trackers Raceway, Inc. v. Comstock Agency, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Crosby Square Apartments v. HensonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  2. Feingold, A. v. Aversa, J.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2019
  3. Feingold, A. v. State Farm Insurance Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2019
  4. Fischl, E. v. The Law Offices of GelmanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2021
  5. G.M. Martinez v. City of Reading Police PA DOTCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2023

9 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