Ruh v. Ruh

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the trial court erred in denying the appellant’s petition to strike the judgment because the prothono-tary did not note in the docket the giving of the written notice to the appellant or his attorney under Rule 236
• remanding case where docket contained no entry that notice of decree nisi was sent to appellant or his counsel
• failure to file timely exceptions to lower court’s decree nisi excused because Rule 236 notice had not been given

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).