Davis v. Langton

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Davis v. Langton

447 A.2d 996, 301 Pa. Super. 338, 1982 Pa. Super. LEXIS 4531

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJuly 2, 1982

DocketNo. 826

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 447 A.2d 996 (Davis v. Langton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Davis v. Langton, 447 A.2d 996, 301 Pa. Super. 338, 1982 Pa. Super. LEXIS 4531 (Pa. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is from an order dismissing appellant’s complaint with prejudice pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 4019 for repeatedly failing to answer appellee’s supplemental interrogatories. The procedural history of this case is adequately discussed by the lower court. On appeal, appellant argues that the lower court abused its discretion by dismissing the complaint with prejudice when other less severe sanctions were available under the rule. We agree. Although we can well understand the lower court’s frustration with appellant’s counsel, we nevertheless think it was unduly harsh to preclude appellant’s claim.

Reversed and remanded. Lower court to enter an order precluding appellant from proving any damages which were the subject of appellee’s interrogatories.

CIRILLO, J., files a concurring opinion.

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

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is from an order dismissing appellant’s complaint with prejudice pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 4019 for repeatedly failing to answer appellee’s supplemental interrogatories. The procedural history of this case is adequately discussed by the lower court. On appeal, appellant argues that the lower court abused its discretion by dismissing the complaint with prejudice when other less severe sanctions were available under the rule. We agree. Although we can well understand the lower court’s frustration with appellant’s counsel, we nevertheless think it was unduly harsh to preclude appellant’s claim.

Reversed and remanded. Lower court to enter an order precluding appellant from proving any damages which were the subject of appellee’s interrogatories.

CIRILLO, J., files a concurring opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

447 A.2d 996, 301 Pa. Super. 338, 1982 Pa. Super. LEXIS 4531, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-langton-pasuperct-1982.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack