The appellate court ruled that a remand was required so that a hearing could be conducted to determine whether venue was proper in Philadelphia based upon the plaintiff’s claim that she served the defendant at the defendant’s “office or usual place of business” pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 402(a)(2)(iii).
Source “The Legal Intelligencer’s Most Viewed Cases For The Week,” www.Law.com. (March 1, 2024).
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.