Shanahan v. Groen

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Shanahan v. Groen

689 A.2d 310, 456 Pa. Super. 32, 1997 Pa. Super. LEXIS 229

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedFebruary 12, 1997

DocketNo. 3703

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 689 A.2d 310 (Shanahan v. Groen) 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

Shanahan v. Groen, 689 A.2d 310, 456 Pa. Super. 32, 1997 Pa. Super. LEXIS 229 (Pa. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

JOHNSON, Judge.

Terri and Joseph Shanahan appeal from the order that denied their motion to vacate a judgment of non pros. The trial court entered the judgment pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 218 because the Shanahans’ counsel failed to appear at the status call of the list for the assignment of a trial date. We reverse.

The Shanahans contend on appeal that the trial court: (1) lacked authority to enter a judgment of non pros based on their counsel’s failure to appear at the status call of the list; and (2) abused its discretion in refusing to vacate the judgment of non pros.

Based upon this Court’s recent Opinion in Gendrachi v. Cassidy, — Pa.Super. —, — A.2d — (1997)(No. 2546 Philadelphia, 1995, filed Jan. 14, 1997)(en banc), we conclude that the trial court lacked authority to enter the judgment of non pros. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings consistent with Gendrachi

Because of our resolution of the Shana-hans’ first contention, we need not address their remaining contention.

Order REVERSED. Case REMANDED. Jurisdiction RELINQUISHED.

CIRILLO, J., concurs in the result.

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