Legal Opinion

Spack v. Apostolidis

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 28, 1986No. 00286 and 00287PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BECK, Judge:

Appellants appeal the judgment on the pleadings entered in favor of appellee Dr. Apostolidis on the ground that the appellants’ suit was barred by the two-year statute of limitations. We affirm.

In reviewing an order granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings, we “accept as true the opposing party’s well-pleaded averments of fact and consider against him only those facts which he specifically admits.” Zelik v. Daily News Publishing Co., 288 Pa.Super. 277, 279, 431 A.2d 1046, 1047 (1981). In ascertaining the facts, we must examine only the pleadings and the documents properly…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  2. Gallo v. J.C. Penney Casualty InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  3. Murray v. University of Pennsylvania HospitalSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  4. Moore v. McComseySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  5. Sykes v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation AuthoritySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1973

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Allan J. Jablonski v. Pan American World Airways, IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1988
  2. Mellon Bank, N.A. v. National Union InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  3. Tuman v. Genesis AssociatesDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1996
  4. Capanna v. Travelers InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  5. Ritchey v. PattSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1994

3 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