Monroe Contract Corp. v. Harrison Square, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a verification signed by attorney and not party sufficiently complied with Rule 1024
• concluding that a verification signed by attorney and not party sufficiently complied with Rule 1024
• holding that remand was not “in the best interests of judicial economy . . . for the sole purpose of effecting a miniscule and purely formal amendment.”
• holding that, non-compliance with the verification requirement will not be condoned
• noting that where failure to attach verification is inconsequential and not prejudicial, the case may proceed to aid in judicial economy
• stating that, in regard to the contents of verifications, de minimis violations of Pa. R.C.P. No. 1024 are not jurisdictional; court confronted with a defective verification should grant leave to amend and not dismiss accompanying petition

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).