Legal Opinion

Mull v. Kerstetter

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 20, 1988No. 00387PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

POPOVICH, Judge:

This is an appeal from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Snyder County sustaining the preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer of the defendant/appellee/ Abraham F. Kerstetter and dismissing the complaint of the plaintiffs/appellants/Rick L. and Dianne L. Mull, his wife. We reverse.

In assessing the propriety of the actions of the court below, we must keep the following in mind; namely:

The standards for sustaining preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer are quite strict. A demurrer admits every well-pleaded material fact set forth in the pleadings…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. PAPIEVES Et Ux. v. KellySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
  2. Schott v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1969
  3. Hoffman v. Misericordia HospitalSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
  4. Buchanan v. Brentwood Federal Savings & Loan Assoc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  5. Gekas v. ShappSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Creeger Brick & Building Supply Inc. v. Mid-State Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  2. Bester v. Essex Crane Rental Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
  3. Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. v. D'AMBROSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  4. Philmar Mid-Atlantic, Inc. v. York Street Associates IISupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  5. Hopkins v. MedeirosMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2000

17 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