DiNardo v. Central Penn Air Services, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• because plaintiff’s answer ineffectively denied the averments in defendant’s petition to open, there were no factual disputes that would require a Rule 209 procedure, and the court could examine the facts as alleged in the petition

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).