Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Tabas v. Robert Development Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 16, 1972No. Appeals, Nos. 60 and 330Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by

Packel, J.:

I join in Judge Spaulding’s opinion in No. 60, affirming the lower court’s denial of appellant’s petition to strike off the judgment. I dissent, however, in No. 330 in that the majority’s reversal of the court below gives a “stay of all proceedings” too broad a scope.

The majority relies upon the primary jurisdiction of the court which first acquires jurisdiction. This general principle is not to be disputed as to the issue of whether the judgment is or is not to be opened.1 The transferability of the judgment, however, in no way impinges upon the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. New Brighton & New Castle Railroad v. Pittsburgh, Youngstown & Chicago RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1884
  2. Kittanning Insurance v. ScottSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1882
  3. Lukacko v. MucerinoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1960
  4. Boyd v. Operating Engineers Welfare FundPennylvania Municipal Court, Philadelphia County · 1959

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API