green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
11.0 score
“e are not persuaded that irpc's failure to file its designation of reproduced record in a timely fashion will be inherently prejudicial to travelers property casualty corporation and travelers casualty and surety company. hence, the motion to quash is denied.”
Treatment trajectory · 2007 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2007
2016
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
E.H, Jr. v. Y.R.
e are not persuaded that irpc's failure to file its designation of reproduced record in a timely fashion will be inherently prejudicial to travelers property casualty corporation and travelers casualty and surety company. hence, the motion to quash is denied.
discussed
Cited "see"
DiMeo, F. v. Gross, P.
(2×)
See McManamon v. Washko, 906 A.2d 1259, 1280-81 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal denied, 591 Pa. 736 , 921 A.2d 497 (2007).
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Montgomery, E.
See Yohe, 641 A.2d at 1212 . -9- J-S02044-21 “An appeal nunc pro tunc is intended as a remedy to vindicate the right to an appeal where that right has been lost due to certain extraordinary circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 893 A.2d 147, 150 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 921 A.2d 497 (Pa. 2007).
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Hollins, E.
See, McManamon v. Washko, 906 A.2d 1259 (Pa. Super. 2006), appeal denied 921 !1 1' A.2d 497, 591 Pa. 736 . ' l j Due to the foregoing, this Court finds that Defendant's claim that he was refused L permission to elicit testimony regarding Officer Loskoch's memory of the odor of gun powder is.
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Fulmore
See Commonwealth v. Williams, 893 A.2d 147 (Pa.Super.2006), appeal denied, 591 Pa. 735 , 921 A.2d 497 (2007) (Commonwealth appeal of trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion in limine was quashed as notice of appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 311(d) was not timely filed; it was of no moment that the Commonwealth had the right to seek reconsideration of the trial court’s decision beyond the 30-day appeal period, as the trial court’s ruling was a final order that was immediately appealable).
examined
Cited "see"
COM., DEPT. OF GENERAL SERVICES v. US Mineral Products Co.
(3×)
See DGS II, 927 A.2d at 731 (citing McManamon v. Washko, 906 A.2d 1259, 1268-69 (Pa.Super.2006), appeal denied, 591 Pa. 736 , 921 A.2d 497 (2007)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Com. v. Reynolds, J., 4th
Regarding the scope of cross-examination, Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 611(b) states that “[c]ross-examination of a witness other than a party in a civil case should be limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting credibility, however, the [trial] court may, in the exercise of discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters as if on direct examination.” Pa.R.E. 611(b); see also McManamon v. Washko, 906 A.2d 1259, 1279 (Pa. Super. 2006) (stating, Rule 611(b) permits the trial court, “in its discretion, to allow inquiry into additional matters as if on …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
OCWEN FEDERAL BANK, FSB, Respondent
v.
ANDREW EZEKOYE AND DOROTHY UJU EZEKOYE, Petitioners.
v.
ANDREW EZEKOYE AND DOROTHY UJU EZEKOYE, Petitioners.
592, 593, 617, 618, AND 619 WAL 2006.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Apr 13, 2007.
ORDER
PER CURIAM
AND NOW, this 13th day of April, 2007, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal, and the "Petition for Leave to Reply to Ocwen's Brief in Opposition or in the Alternative Petition for This Honorable Court to Summarily Reverse the Lower Courts" are DENIED.
Madame Justice Baldwin did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
Mr. Justice Fitzgerald III did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.