869 A.2d 482
Decided February 23, 2005
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 2005-02-23
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently October 2006
3 state decisions
Key passage — most relied on by later courts
“whether the Superior Court erred in finding that petitioner alleged sufficient facts to warrant opening the judgment of non pros, where respondent failed to comply with the certificate of merit requirement set forth in Pa.R.C.P. 1042.3. In addressing this issue, the parties shall also address the question of whether Rule 1042.3 should be deemed subject to equitable exceptions.”
quoted by 1 later decision, including 2005 Pa. Super. 240 - Yee v. Roberts
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 2005-02-23
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶1ORDER
¶2AND NOW, this 23rd day of February 2005, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED to whether the Superior Court erred in finding that petitioner alleged sufficient facts to warrant opening the judgment of non pros, where respondent failed to comply with the certificate of merit requirement set forth in Pa.R.C.P. 1042.3. In addressing this issue, the parties shall also address the question of whether Rule 1042.3 should be deemed subject to equitable exceptions.