Legal Opinion

Phila. Rapid Transit Co. v. King

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 11, 1933No. Appeal 304PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion bt

Keller, J.,

The plaintiff is justly subject to criticism for the form and content of its statement of cause of action. Instead of complying with the directions of the Practice Act of 1915' (P. L. 483), which call for “a-statement in a concise and summary form of the material facts on which......[it] relies for its claim,” it filed a form of statement which was apparently designed to cover in one pleading all the general grounds of negligence which the ingenuity of the pleader could think of, with the result that it presented no more concise and definite a cause of action than an old…

2Cited by9 opinions

  1. Rodes & De Szirmay v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
  2. Clancy v. Wileczek, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1974
  3. Driefer v. Hershey Estates, Inc., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County1951
  4. Herring v. East Penn Electric Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Schuylkill County1936
  5. Kirkpatrick v. Alan Wood Steel Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County1938

4 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