local court rule in Pennsylvania

1978In Straff v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 230 Pa.Super. 403 , 326 A.2d 586 (1974), our Court was faced with a highly analogous circumstance, where appellants failed to comply with applicable local rules concerning post-trial motions.

1978In Straff v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 230 Pa.Super. 403 , 326 A.2d 586 (1974), our Court was faced with a highly analogous circumstance, where appellants failed to comply with applicable local rules concerning post-trial motions.

2022Id. at 332 .

2022Id. at 332 .

2022However, in the absence of a local court rule, “each trial court has been vested with the full authority of the court to make rules of practice for the proper disposition of cases before them and that [the Supreme Court has] enforced those rules unless they violated the Constitution or laws of the Commonwealth or United States, or [the Supreme Court’s] state-wide rules.” Id.

2021Likewise, in Weinhold, 635 A.2d at 247 , this Court stated that the lower court abused its discretion in dismissing the landowner’s appeal of a zoning board decision for failure to file a timely brief without first giving the landowner “notice of the proposed dismissal” and “an opportunity to respond and explain the reasons for failing to timely file his brief, the merits of which [the lower court] could either accept or reject in a well-reasoned opinion.” In City of Philadelphia, 497 A.2d 689 , this Court reversed the lower court’s decision dismissing the City’s appeal for failure to comply w

2021Likewise, in Weinhold, 635 A.2d at 247 , this Court stated that the lower court abused its discretion in dismissing the landowner’s appeal of a zoning board decision for failure to file a timely brief without first giving the landowner “notice of the proposed dismissal” and “an opportunity to respond and explain the reasons for failing to timely file his brief, the merits of which [the lower court] could either accept or reject in a well-reasoned opinion.” In City of Philadelphia, 497 A.2d 689 , this Court reversed the lower court’s decision dismissing the City’s appeal for failure to comply w

2021In Appeal of Midland Land & Water Transportation, Inc., 711 A.2d 612 , this Court held that a taxpayer’s failure to comply with a local court rule on the form of an appeal from a property tax assessment does not warrant the appeal’s dismissal.

1997In Gerace v. Holmes Protection of Philadelphia, 357 Pa.Super. 467 , 516 A.2d 354 (1986), allocatur denied, 515 Pa. 580 , 527 A.2d 541 (1987), this Court concluded that the right to argue under Rule 211 is a qualified right.

1997In Gerace v. Holmes Protection of Philadelphia, 357 Pa.Super. 467 , 516 A.2d 354 (1986), allocatur denied, 515 Pa. 580 , 527 A.2d 541 (1987), this Court concluded that the right to argue under Rule 211 is a qualified right.

1993In response, appellee maintains that a Commonwealth Court decision, Appeal of Lynch Community Homes, Inc., 105 Pa.Cmwlth. 29 , 522 A.2d 716 (1987), which has upheld Montgomery County R.Civ.P. *302(f), applies in this case.

1993Id. at 32 n. 2, 522 A.2d at 717 -18 n. 2. 5 For the following reasons, the application of Montgomery County Local Rule *302(f) to stale, inactive cases is limited to the facts and procedural posture of Appeal of Lynch Community Homes, Inc., supra. Rule 239(f) proscribes dismissal of an action pursuant to a local court rule unless the rule was “promulgated under Rule *430 of Judicial Administration 1901.” Rule 1901 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Judicial Administration provides: RULE 1901.

1993Id. at 32 n. 2, 522 A.2d at 717 -18 n. 2. 5 For the following reasons, the application of Montgomery County Local Rule *302(f) to stale, inactive cases is limited to the facts and procedural posture of Appeal of Lynch Community Homes, Inc., supra. Rule 239(f) proscribes dismissal of an action pursuant to a local court rule unless the rule was “promulgated under Rule *430 of Judicial Administration 1901.” Rule 1901 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Judicial Administration provides: RULE 1901.

1981Michigan v. Bell, 53 Mich.App. 161 , 218 N.W.2d 873 (1974): The constitutional and substantive right of a defendant to a trial by jury cannot be diminished by a local court rule waiver provision that enlarges the statutory method of waiver.

1981Michigan v. Bell, 53 Mich.App. 161 , 218 N.W.2d 873 (1974): The constitutional and substantive right of a defendant to a trial by jury cannot be diminished by a local court rule waiver provision that enlarges the statutory method of waiver.

1979The Pennsylvania Constitution, Article V, Section 16(r)(iii), after conferring jurisdiction in certain criminal, cases to the Municipal Court, provides that a defendant shall “have the right of appeal for trial de novo including the right to trial by jury to the trial division of the court of common pleas.” Appellant in that case challenged the constitutionality of a local court rule which provided that pre-trial suppression motions would be heard by a judge sitting as a common pleas judge, but that “the motion may not be reinstated as part of the appeal [to common pleas court].” There we held

1979The Pennsylvania Constitution, Article V, Section 16(r)(iii), after conferring jurisdiction in certain criminal, cases to the Municipal Court, provides that a defendant shall “have the right of appeal for trial de novo including the right to trial by jury to the trial division of the court of common pleas.” Appellant in that case challenged the constitutionality of a local court rule which provided that pre-trial suppression motions would be heard by a judge sitting as a common pleas judge, but that “the motion may not be reinstated as part of the appeal [to common pleas court].” There we held

1978Recently, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Weber v. Lynch, 473 Pa. 599 , 375 A.2d 1278 (1977), invalidated a local court rule restricting parties to compulsory arbitration to calling on appeal in a trial de novo, only those witnesses who testified at the arbitration hearing.

1978Recently, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Weber v. Lynch, 473 Pa. 599 , 375 A.2d 1278 (1977), invalidated a local court rule restricting parties to compulsory arbitration to calling on appeal in a trial de novo, only those witnesses who testified at the arbitration hearing.

1978Admittedly Quattrone v. Quattrone, 240 Pa. Superior Ct. 619 , 361 A. 2d 399 (1976), acknowledged that Rule 229 is applicable in divorce actions.

1978Admittedly Quattrone v. Quattrone, 240 Pa. Superior Ct. 619 , 361 A. 2d 399 (1976), acknowledged that Rule 229 is applicable in divorce actions.

1969Olitzky, 184 Pa. Super. 144 ." [2] The court's view on this issue is set forth in its opinion on the motion for a new trial. [3] The Commonwealth advances, as a ground for affirmance, defense counsel's minor deviation from the local court rule.

1921While there is apparently not a universal practice throughout the courts of the State in relation to such appearance, dependent somewhat on the local court rule, yet such appearance must be recognized under the rule as stated in Turner v. Larkin, 12 Pa. Superior Ct. 284, 290 , “that a party may appear specially for the purpose of stating an objection without thereby waiving it.” The question primarily for our consideration relates to allowance of a petition for amendment by the plaintiff, as the same cures the defect raised by defendant.