Legal Opinion · Dissent

Fratto v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 23, 1969No. Appeal, No. 59Published

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion by

Mr. Justice Roberts:

While I agree with the general principle relied upon by appellees that a suit brought in a court without jurisdiction is a mere nullity, I believe that appellants’ position rests not so much upon the existence of the federal action as it does upon appellees’ reaction to that federal suit. Appellants do not contend that the federal action tolled the statute, or that it worked a compliance with the policy. Rather, the Frattos contend that even if the federal action was a mere nullity and even if parties cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction upon a…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Bollinger v. National Fire InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Lardas v. Underwriters InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1967
  3. Arlotte v. National Liberty InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
  4. Hocking v. Howard InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
  5. Keystone Mutual Benefit Ass'n v. Norris ex rel. SpanglerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1887

2 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