Dublin Sportswear v. Charlett
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
NIX, Justice.
We are called upon in this appeal to assess the propriety of the trial court’s decision to permit the plaintiff in a civil suit to proceed to trial and verdict in the defendant’s absence under Pa.Rule of Civil Procedure 218. The trial court concluded that the attending circumstances justified permitting the trial to be conducted without the presence of defendant, his witnesses if any, and counsel.1 On appeal to the Superior Court, the judgment was sustained. Recognizing the serious problems created by on-the-day-of-trial continuances for the fair and proper…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Budget Laundry Co. v. MUNTERSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
- Nerkowski v. Yellow Cab Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1969
3Cited by26 opinions
- Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. v. JohnsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
- KRUPA BY KRUPA v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
- Stock v. ArnottSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
- McFarlane v. HickmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
- Princess Hotels International v. HamiltonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.