four-judge plurality held that plaintiff's failure to make a reasonable offer is not a procedural delay which actually prolonged the trial and thus does not serve to reduce defendant's liability for delay damages when the defendant has not made an adequate written offer
How later courts described this case
- four-judge plurality held that plaintiff's failure to make a reasonable offer is not a procedural delay which actually prolonged the trial and thus does not serve to reduce defendant's liability for delay damages when the defendant has not made an adequate written offer
- delay caused by overcrowding of the court system will not be subtracted from the period of delay chargeable against a defendant
- constitutional issues must be reached because there was no mechanism in place for issue preservation
- rule unconstitutionally punishes defendant in the absence of fault
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*221 CAVANAUGH, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent and would remand for a calculation of delay damages under New Rule 238 for the reasons set forth in my Dissenting Opinion in King v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 383 Pa.Super. 420 , 557 A.2d 11 (1989.)
OLSZEWSKI, J., joins CAVANAUGH, J.