The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has remanded a case in which one of the heirs to the Tylenol fortune sought permission for pre-complaint discovery he expected would bolster his claims that he did not receive his due inheritance. The justices were not able to reach a consensus on how trial judges should handle such requests. The lead opinion suggested a standard of good faith and probable cause that the specific information at issue "is both material and necessary to" the filing of a complete complaint.
March 28, 2006 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
Reversing the Superior Court, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has remanded back to a Montgomery County Common Pleas judge a case in which one of the heirs to the Tylenol fortune sought permission for pre-complaint discovery he expected would bolster his claims that he did not receive his due inheritance.
The five justices that participated in deciding McNeil v. Jordan were not able to reach a consensus about how Pennsylvania’s trial judges should handle requests for pre-complaint discovery.
Presented by BigVoodoo
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Atlanta s John Marshall Law School is seeking to hire one or more full-time, visiting Legal WritingInstructors to teach Legal Research, Anal...
Shipman is seeking an associate to join our Labor & Employment practice in our Hartford, New Haven, or Stamford office. Candidates shou...
Lower Manhattan firm seeks a premises liability litigator (i.e., depositions, SJ motions, and/or trials) with at least 3-6 years of experien...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
