Legal Opinion
Crompton v. Park Ward Motors, Inc.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Decided April 30, 1982No. 2544PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SPAETH, Judge:
This is an appeal from an order sustaining preliminary objections and dismissing appellant’s complaint for lack of in personam jurisdiction. We affirm.
When a defendant properly objects, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the court has in personam jurisdiction. Whalen v. Walt Disney World Co., 274 Pa.Super. 246, 252 n. 3, 418 A.2d 389, 392 n. 3 (1980); Biel v. Herman Lowenstein, Inc., 411 Pa. 559, 192 A.2d 391, 393 (1963). Here, the record includes the complaint and answer, appellant’s deposition, and affidavits filed by appellee Park Ward Motors, Inc. An examination of…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. WoodsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Hanson v. DencklaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- McGee v. International Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Shaffer v. HeitnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Temtex Products, Inc. v. KramerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
- Schmitt v. Seaspray-Sharkline, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- Martin v. GernerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
- Gulentz v. Wayne A. Fosdick, B & C Trucking, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
- Gall v. HammerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.