Legal Opinion

Clouser v. Shamokin Packing Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 29, 1976No. Appeal, 1686PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Hoffman, J.,

Appellant contends that the trial court, in passing upon appellees’ preliminary objections, improperly took judicial notice of the facts that a food processor cannot detect trichinae in raw.pork, and that proper cooking of pork will destroy trichinae and render the meat fit for human consumption.

On September 7, 1974, appellant ordered a sausage breakfast at Diz’s restaurant in Berwick, Pennsylvania. On November 19, 1974, appellant filed a complaint which alleged that she contracted trichinosis as a result of consuming the sausage at that restaurant. John Pacentó, the…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Hoffman v. Misericordia HospitalSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
  2. Greenberg v. Aetna InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1967
  3. Yania v. BiganSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
  4. Sun Ray Drug Co. v. LawlerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  5. Engel v. Parkway Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970

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

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. CasperSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  2. Stein v. RichardsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  3. 220 Partnership v. Philadelphia Electric Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  4. Wells v. Pittsburgh Board of Public EducationCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  5. Commonwealth v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1977

19 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