Aberdeen Hills Second Corp. v. Biafore
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
EGAN, District Judge.
This is a motion by the defendants to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff corporation was not duly authorized to maintain this action and that as to the corporate defendants the complaint does not adequately state a cause of action against them.
On a motion to dismiss, all the facts well pleaded in the complaint must be taken as admitted.
“It is also well-settled that on a motion to dismiss the complaint must be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and that the complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears to a certainty that the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Frederick Hart & Co. v. Recordgraph CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1948
- Continental Collieries, Inc. v. ShoberCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1942
- Carroll v. Morrison Hotel CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1945
- Syracuse Broadcasting Corp. v. NewhouseDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 1953
3Cited by3 opinions
- Dovberg v. Dow Chemical Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1961
- Dovberg v. Dow Chemical CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1961
- Robert Douglas Peterson v. Tim Garrett, et al.District Court, D. Nevada · 2026