Legal Opinion

Waddell v. Trostel

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 14, 1984No. 160PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Per curiam

Plaintiff-appellant, Jane Louise Waddell, takes this appeal from the following order of the court of common pleas:

AND NOW, this 29th day of March, 1983, the demurrers are sustained and the complaint is dismissed. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint in assumpsit or an amendment to Count III within twenty (20) days of this date. The actions in equity are dismissed without further leave to amend.

Because we find this to be an interlocutory order, we quash this appeal.

Appellant’s complaint filed in the court below contained three counts: (1) a complaint for specific performance, (2) a petition…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Praisner v. StockerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  2. Giannini v. FoySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  3. J. A. & W. A. Hess, Inc. v. Hazle TownshipSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
  4. Pullium v. Laurel School DistrictSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Mier v. StewartSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
  2. Boyce v. Smith-Edwards-Dunlap Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  3. Parker v. MacDonaldSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  4. Danko Development Corp. v. Econocast Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  5. Indiana County Hospital Authority v. McCarl's Plumbing & Heating Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985

8 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