Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 4/16/1991
Schrock v. Albert Einstein Medical Center
Citations
- 589 A.2d 1103
- 527 Pa. 191
- 1991 Pa. LEXIS 94
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- instructing that Rule 238 as revised in 1988 applied to future actions and to pending actions where delay damages have not yet been determined
- Delay damages may be assessed even if defendant is free from fault in delay of trial
- delay damages may be assessed even if defendant is free from fault in delay of trial
- fundamental fairness requires that plaintiffs receive interest on what is essentially then-money for the period defendants held it until trial
- “Under former Rule 238, interest was calculated at 10% per annum.... Under revised Rule 238, interest is calculated at the rate equal to the prime rate ... plus one percent_”
- “[T]he mere fact that a defendant is not at fault in causing the delay in a case does not automatically relieve the defendant from being assessed delay damages under Rule 238.... [W]hen both parties are blameless it would be unreasonable and unjust to deny delay damages.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Zappala, Papadakos, Cappy, Nix
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
28 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Krebs v. United Refining Co. of PennsylvaniaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 2006-02-16· cited 407×
- Lilley v. Johns-Manville Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1991-08-22· cited 84×
- Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaThird Circuit· 2010-06-09· cited 72×
- KRYSMALSKI BY KRYSMALSKI v. TarasovichSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1993-03-01· cited 54×
- Charles Francisco Cecilia Francisco v. United StatesThird Circuit· 2001-10-01· cited 37×
- Arthur v. KucharSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1996-09-17· cited 28×
- Knight, David and Knight, Kathleen v. Tape, Inc. v. General Mills, IncThird Circuit· 1991-07-29· cited 26×
- Costa v. Lauderdale Beach HotelSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1993-06-08· cited 24×
- Bailey v. Pennsylvania Electric Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1991-10-11· cited 19×
- City of Philadelphia v. Duda by DudaCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1991-07-08· cited 19×
- Sutch, R. v. Roxborough Memorial HospitalSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 2016-11-15· cited 18×
- Thomas H. Ross Inc. v. SeigfreidSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1991-06-20· cited 13×
- Miller v. HellmanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1994-04-08· cited 8×
- Shamnoski v. PG Energy a Division of Southern Union Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2000-12-01· cited 6×
- BROCKLEHURST BY BROCKLEHURST v. WatsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1991-09-05· cited 5×
- Sealover v. Carey CanadaM.D. Pennsylvania· 1992-05-07· cited 4×
- Starr v. VenezianoCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1998-01-08· cited 2×
- Frisch, A. v. James River Ins.Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2021-10-20· cited 2×
- Francisco v. United StatesE.D. Pennsylvania· 1999-06-22· cited 1×
- Unnamed caseThird Circuit· 1993-06-22
Cites
6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Laudenberger v. Port Auth. of AlleghenySupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1981-10-29· cited 296×
- Craig v. Magee Memorial Rehabilitation CenterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1986-10-08· cited 165×
- Ceresini v. Valley View Trailer ParkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1988-12-21· cited 49×
- Schrock v. Albert Einstein Medical CenterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1989-08-02· cited 24×
- Commonwealth, Department of Environmental Resources v. Pennsylvania Power Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1980-07-03· cited 12×
- Knudsen v. Delaware County Regional Water Quality Control AuthorityCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1988-12-08· cited 5×
Other cases named Schrock v. Albert Einstein Medical Center
1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.