O'Connor v. Honda Motor Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that it was improper to dismiss the complaint as frivolous under Rule 240(j) where the trial court, in the same action, granted IFP status “and then dismissed the action”
• holding that it was improper to dismiss the complaint as frivolous under Pa.R.C.P. No. 240(j)(1), based on affirmative defenses which were deemed improper since the Commonwealth had not filed an answer; in other words, Pa.R.C.P. No. 240 did not even apply
• holding that it was improper to dismiss the complaint as frivolous under Pa.R.C.P. No. 240(j)(1), based on affirmative defenses which were deemed improper since the Commonwealth had not filed an answer; in other words, Pa.R.C.P. No. 240 did not even apply

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).