Legal Opinion

Feingold v. Hill

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 11, 1987No. 02876PublishedCited by 50 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BROSKY, Judge:

This appeal arises from the granting of preliminary objections to a civil complaint. The trial court ordered that appellant’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action. Appellant, Allen L. Feingold, contends that the trial judge erred when he: (1) dismissed the complaint, as the complaint stated a cause of action pursuant to a number of intentional torts; (2) refused appellant’s request for leave to amend the complaint; and (3) refused to recuse himself from the case. Finding appellant’s arguments to be without merit, we now affirm.

Appellant is…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Stump v. SparkmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. Reilly v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation AuthoritySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  3. McNair's PetitionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  4. Praisner v. StockerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  5. BAKER v. RANGOSSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1974

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

3Cited by50 opinions

  1. Rizzo v. HainesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  2. Feingold v. HendrzakSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
  3. Somerset Community Hospital v. Allan B. Mitchell & Associates, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
  4. Orange Stones Co. v. City of ReadingCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  5. Guarrasi v. ScottCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2011

45 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