Legal Opinion
Hull v. Rose, Schmidt, Hasley & DiSalle P.C.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Decided September 19, 1997No. 02027PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CIRILLO, President Judge Emeritus.
J. Daniel Hull appeals from an order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County sustaining Appellees’ (the Partnership’s) preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer and dismissing Hull’s complaint. We affirm.
According to Hull’s complaint, in 1981 he began working as an associate attorney for Rose, Schmidt, Hasley & DiSalle in the law firm’s Washington, D.C. office. Rose, Schmidt, Hasley & DiSalle was, at that time, a general partnership.1 In May of 1986, while still, an associate, Hull voluntarily entered a 28-day rehabilitation program…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Hishon v. King & SpaldingSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. MurgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Marilyn Wheeler v. Main HurdmanCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1987
- Despina Spirides v. John E. Reinhardt, Director of United States International Communication AgencyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1979
- Curtis v. KlineSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Commonwealth v. MurphySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
- Commonwealth v. DavisSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
- Bailey v. StorlazziSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
- Myers v. Garfield & Johnson Enterprises, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2010
- Warshaw v. Concentra Health ServicesDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2010
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.