Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 Pennsylvania opinions name it 4 courts 1976–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Pennridge Electric, Inc. v. Souderton Area Joint School Authoritygreen2 sentences1994In Pennridge Electric Inc. v. Souderton Area Joint School Authority, 419 Pa. Super. 201 , 615 A.2d 95 (1992), a case decided by the undersigned in the lower court, the Pennsylvania Superior Court interpreted the test in Penn Piping as follows: “The court in Penn Piping appears to adopt a per se rule in which delay in excess of two years establishes prejudice sufficient to satisfy the third prong of the non pros test. 1994In Pennridge Electric Inc. v. Souderton Area Joint School Authority, 419 Pa. Super. 201 , 615 A.2d 95 (1992), a case decided by the undersigned in the lower court, the Pennsylvania Superior Court interpreted the test in Penn Piping as follows: “The court in Penn Piping appears to adopt a per se rule in which delay in excess of two years establishes prejudice sufficient to satisfy the third prong of the non pros test. | 2 | 3 |
James Bros. Co. v. Union B. & T. Co. of DuBoisgreen2 sentences2016In Jacobs, our Supreme Court re-affirmed the non pros standard developed in James Brothers Lumber Company v. Union Banking and Trust Company of DuBois, 247 A.2d 587 (Pa. 1968): The effect of our decision today is to return to the three part test of James Brothers. 1976See James Brothers Co. v. Union Banking and Trust Co. of DuBois, 432 Pa. 129 , 247 A.2d 587 (1968); Gallagher v. Jewish Hospital Ass’n of Philadelphia, 425 Pa. 112 , 228 A.2d 732 (1967). | 1 | 2 |
Jacobs v. Hallorangreen1 sentence2016Jacobs, 710 A.2d at 1103 (footnote omitted; emphasis in original).2 2 The question before the Court in Jacobs was whether the proper standard to be applied with regard to the prejudice prong of the non pros test permitted the application of a presumption of prejudice. | 1 | 1 |
Hughes v. Fink, Fink and Associatesgreen1 sentence2001Hughes v. Fink, 718 A.2d 316, 318 (Pa.Super. 1998) (holding that where the trial court’s order is a hybrid, entering a judgment of non pros and dismissing the action with prejudice, the order is final and appealable even without the filing of a petition to open or strike). | 1 | 1 |
Abraham Zion Corp. v. After Six, Inc.green2 sentences1997Further, we note that the non pros doctrine is founded upon the equitable principle of laches and may properly be entered “when a party to a proceeding has shown a want of due diligence in failing to proceed with reasonable promptitude, and there is no compelling reason for the delay, and the delay has caused some prejudice to the adverse party.” Zion, 414 Pa.Super. at 615 , 607 A.2d at 1107 (citations omitted). 1997Further, we note that the non pros doctrine is founded upon the equitable principle of laches and may properly be entered “when a party to a proceeding has shown a want of due diligence in failing to proceed with reasonable promptitude, and there is no compelling reason for the delay, and the delay has caused some prejudice to the adverse party.” Zion, 414 Pa.Super. at 615 , 607 A.2d at 1107 (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Marino v. Hackman
green
2 sentences2018The third case of the Jacobs trio, Marino v. Hackman, 551 Pa. 369 , 710 A.2d 1108 (1998), involved a dismissal by the trial court pursuant to a local rule implementing Pa.R.J.A. 1901, and held that in examining the second prong of the non pros test for inactivity, i.e., whether there were compelling reasons for the delay, a court may consider evidence of non-docket activities. 2018The third case of the Jacobs trio, Marino v. Hackman, 551 Pa. 369 , 710 A.2d 1108 (1998), involved a dismissal by the trial court pursuant to a local rule implementing Pa.R.J.A. 1901, and held that in examining the second prong of the non pros test for inactivity, i.e., whether there were compelling reasons for the delay, a court may consider evidence of non-docket activities. | 2 | 1998–2018 |
Streidl v. Community General Hospital
green
2 sentences1994In a companion case to Penn Piping, Streidel v. Community General Hospital, 529 Pa. 360 , 603 A.2d 1011 (1992), the Court expressed the third prong of the non pros test in slightly different language: “(3) the delay has caused some prejudice to the adverse party, which will be presumed in all cases in which the delay is two years or longer.” Id. at 363 , 603 A.2d at 1012. 1994In a companion case to Penn Piping, Streidel v. Community General Hospital, 529 Pa. 360 , 603 A.2d 1011 (1992), the Court expressed the third prong of the non pros test in slightly different language: “(3) the delay has caused some prejudice to the adverse party, which will be presumed in all cases in which the delay is two years or longer.” Id. at 363 , 603 A.2d at 1012. | 2 | 1992–1994 |
Lamp v. Heyman
green
1 sentence2015Id. at 888 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Pine Township Water Co. v. Felmont Oil Corp.
green
2 sentences1996Accordingly, assuming arguendo that appellees failed to demonstrate actual prejudice, it would not be a bar to the entry of a judgment of non pros in this case. 4 Pine Township Water *397 Company v. Felmont Oil, 425 Pa.Super. 473 , 625 A.2d 703 (1993) (because there was no docket activity for period exceeding two years, prejudice was presumed and need not be averred or proven by the movant); Pennridge Electric, supra (holding that where the period of docket inactivity was four years and no compelling reason was provided for the inactivity, prejudice was presumed). 1996Accordingly, assuming arguendo that appellees failed to demonstrate actual prejudice, it would not be a bar to the entry of a judgment of non pros in this case. 4 Pine Township Water *397 Company v. Felmont Oil, 425 Pa.Super. 473 , 625 A.2d 703 (1993) (because there was no docket activity for period exceeding two years, prejudice was presumed and need not be averred or proven by the movant); Pennridge Electric, supra (holding that where the period of docket inactivity was four years and no compelling reason was provided for the inactivity, prejudice was presumed). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Gallagher v. Jewish Hosp. Assn. of Phila.
green
2 sentences1976See James Brothers Co. v. Union Banking and Trust Co. of DuBois, 432 Pa. 129 , 247 A.2d 587 (1968); Gallagher v. Jewish Hospital Ass’n of Philadelphia, 425 Pa. 112 , 228 A.2d 732 (1967). 1976See James Brothers Co. v. Union Banking and Trust Co. of DuBois, 432 Pa. 129 , 247 A.2d 587 (1968); Gallagher v. Jewish Hospital Ass’n of Philadelphia, 425 Pa. 112 , 228 A.2d 732 (1967). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Peterson v. Philadelphia Suburban Transportation Co.
green
2 sentences1976Appellees, however, point to Peterson v. Philadelphia Suburban Transportation Co., 435 Pa. 232 , 255 A.2d 577 (1969) as authority for the proposition that this Court has specifically ruled a hold order by the plaintiff which prevents service of the writ makes the filing of the praecipe a nullity for the purpose of tolling the statute of limitations. 1976Appellees, however, point to Peterson v. Philadelphia Suburban Transportation Co., 435 Pa. 232 , 255 A.2d 577 (1969) as authority for the proposition that this Court has specifically ruled a hold order by the plaintiff which prevents service of the writ makes the filing of the praecipe a nullity for the purpose of tolling the statute of limitations. | 1 | 1976–1976 |