Brooks v. Schachtel

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Brooks v. Schachtel

449 A.2d 752, 303 Pa. Super. 408, 1982 Pa. Super. LEXIS 5063

Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided August 27, 1982·No. Appeal No. 193·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The procedural posture of this appeal is essentially identical to that of Johnson v. Keystone Insurance Company, 299 Pa.Super.Ct. 187, 445 A.2d 517 (1982). Accordingly, we shall vacate the order dismissing appellant’s complaint for noncompliance with the “240 Day Rule” and Philadelphia Rule of Civil Procedure 151, and remand the case to the court below for further proceedings consistent with the opinion in Johnson v. Keystone Insurance Company, supra.

Order vacated, and case remanded for further proceedings. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

The procedural posture of this appeal is essentially identical to that of Johnson v. Keystone Insurance Company, 299 Pa.Super.Ct. 187, 445 A.2d 517 (1982). Accordingly, we shall vacate the order dismissing appellant’s complaint for noncompliance with the “240 Day Rule” and Philadelphia Rule of Civil Procedure 151, and remand the case to the court below for further proceedings consistent with the opinion in Johnson v. Keystone Insurance Company, supra.

Order vacated, and case remanded for further proceedings. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Brooks v. Schachtel, 449 A.2d 752, 303 Pa. Super. 408, 1982 Pa. Super. LEXIS 5063 (Pa. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

449 A.2d 752 (Brooks v. Schachtel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related