Kincy v. Petro

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Kincy v. Petro

972 A.2d 483

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided May 19, 2009·No. 596 EAL 2008·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 19th day of May, 2009, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED to the following issue:

Whether under Pa.R.C.P. 213(a) a trial court order, which states that two separately docketed eases involving different plaintiffs and different theories of liability are “consolidated for all purposes,” and does not otherwise specify that a joint trial of the cases is to be held, operates automatically to merge the pleadings filed in the separate cases?

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 19th day of May, 2009, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED to the following issue:

Whether under Pa.R.C.P. 213(a) a trial court order, which states that two separately docketed eases involving different plaintiffs and different theories of liability are “consolidated for all purposes,” and does not otherwise specify that a joint trial of the cases is to be held, operates automatically to merge the pleadings filed in the separate cases?

Kincy v. Petro, 972 A.2d 483 (Pa. 2009).

Pincite

972 A.2d 483 (Kincy v. Petro) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related