Legal Opinion

Spotts v. Polastre

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Northumberland County

Decided May 17, 1990No. CV-89-598Published

1Opinion of the Court

RANCK, P.J.,

This opinion addresses the procedural issue of whether preliminary objections to an amended complaint that raise the defense of pendency of a prior action can be sustained. Pa.R.C.P. 1028 requires that all preliminary objections must be raised in a single pleading. Pa.R.C.P. 1017 categorizes “the pendency of a prior *122action” as a proper preliminary objection, and it must be raised in response to the original complaint.

The following is a sketch of the procedural history in this contract dispute. In the first action, no. CV-89-598, plaintiff, Richard E. Spotts, t/a R&J Laminates,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Penox Technologies, Inc. v. Foster Medical Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  2. Martin v. GernerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  3. Wudkwych v. Borough of CanonsburgCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1987

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

Powered by the Exa API