Pomerantz v. Goldstein

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that Rule 126 “permits us to disregard procedural errors which do not affect substantial rights”
• holding appellant substantially complied with Rule 1038(d) for filing exceptions, although pleading was erroneously titled motion for new trial, and appellee suffered no prejudice when trial court considered appellant’s pleading
• holding appellant substantially complied with Rule 1038(d) for filing exceptions, although pleading was erroneously titled motion for new trial, and appellee suffered no prejudice when trial court considered appellant’s pleading
• holding appellant substantially complied with Rule 1038(d) for filing exceptions, although pleading was erroneously titled motion for new trial, and appellee suffered no prejudice when trial court considered appellant’s pleading
• vacating the trial court’s dismissal of the appellant’s “exceptions” where the appellant had substantively complied with Pa.R.Civ.P. 1038(d) (governing the filing of exceptions to a court’s decision in a nonjury trial and disallowing the filing of a motion for new trial
• exceptions filed under caption of motion for new trial

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).