Legal Opinion
Marino v. Hackman
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided April 2, 1998No. 193 M.D. Appeal Dkt. 1996PublishedCited by 71 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ZAPPALA, Justice.
We must determine whether non-docket activity may be considered when deciding whether a case should be terminated for inactivity pursuant to local rules implementing Rule of Judicial Administration 1901. 1 For the reasons set forth herein, we hold that non-docket activity may be considered.
On March 4, 1992, Appellants filed a complaint in Berks County seeking damages for injuries allegedly caused by Appellees’ negligence in an automobile accident. The docket reflects activity during 1992, including an answer to the complaint and issues related to discovery. The final…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Jacobs v. HalloranSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
- Penn Piping, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
- Gallagher v. Jewish Hosp. Assn. of Phila.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1967
- Shope v. EagleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
- Streidl v. Community General HospitalSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by71 opinions
- Jacobs v. HalloranSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
- Sahutsky v. H.H. Knoebel SonsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
- Moses v. T.N.T. Red Star ExpressSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
- Shope v. EagleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
- Florig v. Estate of O'HaraSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
66 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.