Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 8/26/2011

Smith v. Morrell Beer Distributors, Inc.

Citations

29 A.3d 23
2011 Pa. Super. 183
2011 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2247
2011 WL 3792809

How courts have described this case

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

holding that a petition need only plead a defense that “if proved at trial would justify relief”
holding appellants were not entitled to relief under Pa.R.Civ.P. 237.3(b) because their petition to open a default judgment did not set forth a meritorious defense (Footnote Continued Next Page
finding that when plaintiffs failed to attach answer to petition, but rather averred answer was forthcoming, “despite their omission, [plaintiffs] would be entitled to relief if their petition met the requirements of Rule 237.3(b).”
explaining that to plead a meritorious defense in the context of a petition to open, “[t]he defendant must set forth the defense in precise, specific and clear terms.” (citation, quotation marks and ellipses omitted)
stating “the requirement of a meritorious defense is only that a defense must be pleaded that if proved at trial would justify relief” (citation modified)
finding defendant failed to “set forth a meritorious defense supported by verified allegations of fact” when petition contained only “conclusions of law and challenges to [plaintiff’s] proof”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Shogan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

12 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.