Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

PAUL WEIMAN v. CITY PHILADELPHIA (10/05/89)

decided: October 5, 1989.

PAUL WEIMAN, AN INCOMPETENT BY JOHN P. TRAHEY, SR., HIS GUARDIAN, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND SEPTA, APPELLEES



Appeal from Common Pleas Court, Philadelphia County; Honorable Nicholas D'Alessandro, Judge.

COUNSEL

George F. Schoener, Jr., M. Mark Mendel, Ltd., Philadelphia, for appellant.

Barbara R. Axelrod, Norma S. Weaver, Chief Deputy, Craig L. Thorpe, Alan C. Ostrow, Chief Assts. City Sol., Philadelphia, for City of Philadelphia.

Celeste Yvonne Lamb, Tort Litigation Unit, Office of Atty. Gen., Philadelphia, for Department of Transp.

Stanley J. Sinowitz, Philadelphia, for SEPTA.

Wayne Partenheimer, Philadelphia, for Allen J. McKinney.

James B. Corrigan, Philadelphia, for Erica Corrigan.

Doyle and Smith, JJ., and Barbieri, Senior Judge.

Author: Doyle

[ 129 Pa. Commw. Page 26]

Paul Weiman (Appellant) appeals an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County denying Appellant's petition to appeal nunc pro tunc the common pleas court's grant of a motion for summary judgment in favor of the City of Philadelphia (City).

The underlying substantive action involves an accident which occurred on July 4, 1984 and a suit which began in February of 1986. On April 15, 1988, the common pleas court granted the City's motion for summary judgment against Appellant by an order "filed" on April 26, 1988 but entered on the docket on May 3, 1988. The prothonotary on

[ 129 Pa. Commw. Page 27]

    that latter date also entered in the docket the words "NOTICE UNDER RULE 236." Rule 236(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure in pertinent part provides: "The prothonotary shall immediately give written notice by ordinary mail of the entry of any order, decree or judgment . . . to each party who has appeared in the action or to the party's attorney of record." Appellant alleged in his petition for appeal nunc pro tunc that neither he nor his attorney ever received notice from the prothonotary of the court order but rather, on August 16, 1988, nearly three and one-half months ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.