Leckey v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Leckey v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation

961 A.2d 856

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided December 30, 2008·No. 329 WAL 2008·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 30th day of December, 2008, PennDOT’s Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED; the order of the Commonwealth Court is VACATED, and the matter is REMANDED for reinstatement of the order granting nonsuit in favor of PennDOT. See Womer v. Hilliker, 589 Pa. 256, 908 A.2d 269, 278 (2006) (Pa.R.C.P. 126 is available to party a who *857 makes substantial attempt to conform to rule of civil procedure, not to a party who disregards rule’s terms entirely and determines for himself what steps he can take to satisfy rule’s requirements),

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 30th day of December, 2008, PennDOT’s Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED; the order of the Commonwealth Court is VACATED, and the matter is REMANDED for reinstatement of the order granting nonsuit in favor of PennDOT. See Womer v. Hilliker, 589 Pa. 256, 908 A.2d 269, 278 (2006) (Pa.R.C.P. 126 is available to party a who *857 makes substantial attempt to conform to rule of civil procedure, not to a party who disregards rule’s terms entirely and determines for himself what steps he can take to satisfy rule’s requirements),

Leckey v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, 961 A.2d 856 (Pa. 2008).

Pincite

961 A.2d 856 (Leckey v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related