Legal Opinion · Dissent

Madrid v. ALPINE MOUNTAIN CORP.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 3, 2011No. 1553 EDA 2010Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION BY

STRASSBURGER, J.:

I respectfully dissent.

A judgment of non pros protects a party from prejudice caused by an adverse party’s unreasonable delay in pursuing claims. In Penn Piping, Inc. v. Insurance Company of North America, 529 Pa. 350, 603 A.2d 1006 (1992), our Supreme Court held that prejudice could be presumed from two years of inactivity on the docket. However, in Jacobs v. Halloran, 551 Pa. 350, 710 A.2d 1098 (1998), our Supreme Court rejected the Penn Piping presumption and required that a defendant show actual prejudice to secure a non pros.

The courts of…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Jacobs v. HalloranSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  2. Penn Piping, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  3. James Bros. Co. v. Union B. & T. Co. of DuBoisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
  4. Marino v. HackmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  5. Schutte v. Valley Bargain Center, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1977

6 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