Liggon-Redding v. Estate of Robert Sugarman

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Pennsylvania’s certificate of merit requirement is substantive state law that must be applied by a federal court sitting in diversity
• holding that Pa. R.C.P. 1042.3 “is substantive law under the Erie [v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)] Rule and must be applied as such by federal courts”
• stating that “Liggon- Redding filed a certificate of merit in compliance with the Pennsylvania rules wherein she indicated that expert testimony of an appropriate licensed professional was unnecessary for the prosecution of her complaint”
• finding that state rule and federal rule did not “directly collide”
• stating the plaintiffs COM was due on January 18, 2008
• “Pro se filings, such as Liggon-Redding’s, must be liberally construed.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).