Gerrow v. John Royle & Sons
766 A.2d 346, 564 Pa. 227, 2001 Pa. LEXIS 393
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedFebruary 23, 2001
DocketPetition No. 482 EAL 2000
StatusPublished
This text of 766 A.2d 346 (Gerrow v. John Royle & Sons) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Gerrow v. John Royle & Sons, 766 A.2d 346, 564 Pa. 227, 2001 Pa. LEXIS 393 (Pa. 2001).
Opinion
ORDER
AND NOW, this 23nd day of February, 2001, the court grants the above-captioned matter, and requests that the parties address the following issues:
a. Whether Rule 1035.3(b)(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure allow a party to supplement the record with additional evidence, rather than limiting such evidence merely to that intended to supplement evidence already of record.
b. Whether the coordinate jurisdiction rule precludes the trial court’s consideration of an expert report, appended to the answer to a motion for summary judgment, that was not filed before the deadline for discovery set by a different judge in the case management order.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
766 A.2d 346, 564 Pa. 227, 2001 Pa. LEXIS 393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gerrow-v-john-royle-sons-pa-2001.