244 Pa. Super. 76 - Lewis v. Reid’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently January 2002
21 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on James Bros. Co. v. Union B. & T. Co. of DuBois · Gallagher v. Jewish Hosp. Assn. of Phila. · Goldstein v. Graduate Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania · Thorn v. Clearfield Borough · Mazer v. Sargent Electric Co.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A petition to open a judgment is addressed to the equitable powers of the court. Johnson v. Mulhall, 230 Pa.Super. 183 , 326 A.2d 439 (1974); Matyas v. Albert Einstein Medical Center, 225 Pa.Super. 230 , 310 A.2d 301 (1973). Accordingly, our Supreme Court has stated that: “A request to open a judgment of non pros is by way of grace and not of right. Its grant or refusal is peculiarly a matter of the lower court’s discretion. An appellate court may not reverse the lower court’s ruling unless an abuse of discretion is clearly evident: Brigham v. Elgin’s of Phila., 406 Pa. 99 , 176 A.2d 404 (1962).” Mazer v. Sargent Electric Co., 407 Pa. 169, 171 , 180 A.2d 63, 64 (1962). A court will not exercise its discretion and open a judgment of non pros unless three factors coalesce: (1) a petition to open the judgment must be promptly filed; (2) there must be a reasonable explanation or excuse for the default; and (3) facts constituting grounds for a cause of action must be alleged. Goldstein v. Graduate Hospital of the U. of Pa., supra; Thorn v. Clearfield Borough, 420 Pa. 584 , 278 A.2d 298 (1966); White v. Alston, 231 Pa.Super. 438 , 331 A.2d 765 (1974); Matyas v. Albert Einstein Medical Center, supra.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the diminished health and ability of appellants’ attorney, ... are equitable considerations sufficient to set aside a judgment of non pros, and reasonably explain the reason for the delay in filing the complaint. Appellants in this case should not be denied their day in court because of the diminished health of their counsel. Appellants had no way of knowing this case was not being diligently prosecuted and should not be made to suffer because of the health of their attorney.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.