Zeigler v. Church of the Brethren

2 Citing cases

  1. In re Petition to Submit Ballot Question to Concord Twp. Voters

    119 A.3d 335 (Pa. 2015)   Cited 7 times

    The plaintiff in Whitemarsh did not raise the issue of timeliness, and it is never the responsibility of the court to develop claims on behalf of a party. See Zeigler v. Church of the Brethren Gen. Bd., 570 Pa. 2, 3, 807 A.2d 872, 872 (2002) (noting it is “improper for court to act as advocate and sua sponte raise defense on behalf of party”). Nonetheless, the quarter sessions court would have presumably remarked on the absence of a claim that would otherwise prove fatal to the defendant's petition.

  2. Mohan v. Easton Radiology

    911 A.2d 505 (Pa. 2006)

    This is, in itself, reversible error. See, Zeigler v. Church of the Brethren General Board, 570 Pa. 2, 807 A.2d 872 (2002). Therefore, it is hereby ordered that this case be REMANDED to the Superior Court with instructions to remand the matter to the trial court for a new trial.