Hill v. Thorne

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Bailey should be given retroactive effect and remanding to allow the legal malpractice plaintiff to amend his complaint to comply with the new standard in Bailey
• noting that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed Hill’s criminal convictions
• liberally construing pro se petition pleading a civil cause of action; “Where these allegations are adequately set forth, a pro se complaint will not be dismissed just because it is not artfully drafted.”
• “We have held that untoward circumstances, such as interference by a third party which prevents delivery of process to the sheriff, can excuse a plaintiff from the strictures of Rule 400[ of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Pa.R.Civ.P. 400].”
• discussing and giving retroactive effect to Bailey

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).