Savitz v. Weinstein
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Bell,
Plaintiff is attempting to recover on an amended complaint in trespass — alleging deceit by defendant who is an attorney at law. The lower Court sustained defendant’s preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, and plaintiff’s amended complaint was dismissed.
In Gardner v. Allegheny County, 382 Pa. 88, 114 A. 2d 491, the Court said (page 94) : “Defendants by their ‘preliminary objections admit as true all facts which are averred in the bill of complaint but not the pleaders’ conclusions or averments of law’: Narehood v. Pearson, 374 Pa. 299, 302, 96 A. 2d…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Gardner v. Allegheny CountySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1955
- Neuman v. Corn Exchange National Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1946
- Waldman v. ShoemakerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
- London v. KingsleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
- Narehood v. PearsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by77 opinions
- Gibbs v. ErnstSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
- Delahanty v. First Pennsylvania Bank, N.A.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
- Toy v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
- County of Allegheny v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
- Bash v. Bell Telephone Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
72 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.