LAMP v. HEYMAN


469 Pa. 465 (1976)

366 A.2d 882

Frances LAMP, Appellant, v. Alvin S. HEYMAN et al., Appellees, and Beaver Valley Motor Coach Company and Clarence Robbins, Additional Appellees.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Decided November 24, 1976.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Louis M. Tarasi, Jr., Conte, Courtney, Tarasi & Price, Pittsburgh, for appellant.

Robert E. Kunselman, Reed, Sohn, Reed & Kunselman, Beaver, for appellees.

Before JONES, C.J., and EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX and MANDERINO, JJ.


OPINION OF THE COURT

EAGEN, Justice.

In this case we are directly confronted for the first time with the important question of whether, in Pennsylvania practice, a plaintiff, whose attorney files a praecipe for a writ of summons to commence an action within the time period permitted by the statute of limitations, instructs the prothonotary to issue the writ but not deliver it to the sheriff for service, and then has the writ reissued and served after that...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases