Legal Opinion · Dissent

Larson v. Diveglia

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 10, 1996Published

1DissentJohnson, Judge

Because I find that Larson has failed to state a cause of action, I would affirm the trial court’s order which granted Diveglia’s preliminary objections and dismissed the complaint for support. Moreover, I conclude that the Majority has inappropriately expanded the definition of standing to include Larson in this case. Thus, I must respectfully dissent.

Initially, I note with disfavor that the complaint filed in the Blair County Court of Common Pleas is void on its face for failing to state a cause of action. The complaint is a computer generated form that Larson, for the most part, left…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Trosky v. MannSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  2. Bratton v. JurySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1994

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API