Millard v. Nagle

How courts have described this case

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

• stating so long as court has jurisdiction, it can exercise its equitable powers to address merits of untimely post-verdict (Footnote Continued Next Page
• absent objection by opposing party, trial court may review merits of issues “whenever original and/or supplemental post-inaZ motions are filed at a time where the trial court has jurisdiction over the matter but outside the ten day requirement of [Pa.R.C.P.] 227.1”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

• D.L. Forrey & Associates, Inc. v. Fuel City Truck Stop, Inc.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2013-06-11· cited 38×
• In Re Greist
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1994-01-14· cited 29×
• Watkins v. Watkins
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2001-04-25· cited 20×
• Mammoccio v. 1818 Market Partnership
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1999-06-10· cited 19×
• Lewis v. Evans
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1997-02-27· cited 14×
• Witherspoon v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2002-12-30· cited 12×
• Hoffman v. Mogil
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1995-08-18· cited 10×
• McSorley v. Deger
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2006-07-31· cited 9×
• Callum v. Scott
  Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas· 2002-06-05
• Free v. Ohl
  Adams County Court of Common Pleas· 1992-11-17

Cites

1 case in this archive is cited by this case.

• Gouse v. Cassel
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1992-10-08· cited 67×