Legal Opinion

Speck v. Finegold

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 18, 1979No. 7PublishedCited by 51 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CERCONE, Presiding Judge:

This case comes before us on plaintiffs’ appeal from the lower court’s order sustaining defendant-physicians’ preliminary objections to certain allegations contained in plaintiffs’ complaint.1 The intended effect of the preliminary objections is to terminate plaintiffs’ lawsuit on grounds that plaintiffs’ action is contrary to law and public policy.2 The matter before us, of first impression in the appellate courts of Pennsylvania, presents for judicial inquiry and decision the cognizability of an action in law brought by plaintiffs to recover damages against…

2Cases cited53 opinions

  1. Roe v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. Griswold v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  3. Incollingo v. EwingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
  4. Becker v. SchwartzNew York Court of Appeals · 1978
  5. Incollingo v. EWINGSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971

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

3Cited by51 opinions

  1. Nelson v. KrusenTexas Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Turpin v. SortiniCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
  3. Procanik by Procanik v. CilloSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1984
  4. Speck v. FinegoldSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  5. Robert Robak and Anna Robak, Cross-Appellants v. United States of America, Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1981

46 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