Legal Opinion

Savitz v. Weinstein

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 20, 1959No. Appeal, 388PublishedCited by 77 opinions

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

  1. Gardner v. Allegheny CountySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1955
  2. Neuman v. Corn Exchange National Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1946
  3. Waldman v. ShoemakerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  4. London v. KingsleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  5. Narehood v. PearsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1953

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by77 opinions

  1. Gibbs v. ErnstSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  2. Delahanty v. First Pennsylvania Bank, N.A.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  3. Toy v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  4. County of Allegheny v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  5. Bash v. Bell Telephone Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992

72 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API