Legal Opinion

Sardo v. Smith

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 18, 2004PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION BY

STEVENS, J.:

¶ 1 This is an appeal from the order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County granting Appellee’s preliminary objections and striking the complaint filed against Appellee on the basis of Witherspoon v. City of Philadelphia, 564 Pa. 388, 768 A.2d 1079 (2001) (Zappala, J., plurality). On appeal, Appellants contend (1) the trial court erred in concluding that Witherspoon is binding authority in the case sub judice, (2) to the extent this Court held in Parr v. Roman, 822 A.2d 78 (Pa.Super.2003), that Witherspoon does not require a hearing where there is no…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Lamp v. HeymanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
  2. Witherspoon v. City of PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  3. Gustine Uniontown Associates, Ltd. v. Anthony Crane Rental, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  4. Ramsay v. PierreSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  5. Parr v. RomanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2003

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Miller v. KlinkCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  2. Johnson v. AllgeierSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  3. Feehan, J. v. Allstate Insurance CompanySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
  4. Moore v. Air Methods, Inc.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2015
  5. Shipers v. Tunic, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County2007

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API