Legal Opinion
Kamensky v. Roemer Industries Inc.
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Mercer County
Decided May 12, 1988No. 1312 C.D. 1987PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FORNELLI, /.,
This case comes before us on preliminary objections in the form of a demurrer to plaintiffs wrongful discharge complaint. Defendants demur as to: (1) the inclusion of Joseph O’Toole as an individual defendant; (2) the entire wrongful discharge cause of action as not violating a recognized public policy; and (3) the request for attorney’s fees. Plaintiff has conceded number 3 by withdrawing his claim for attorney’s fees. It is, therefore, moot.
It is well-established that a demurrer admits all relevant facts sufficiently pled in the complaint and all inferences fairly deductible…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Geary v. United States Steel Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
- Hoffman v. Misericordia HospitalSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
- Yaindl v. Ingersoll-Rand Co. Standard Pump-Aldrich DivisionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
- John Novosel v. Nationwide Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1983
- Wicks v. Milzoco Builders, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Ballinger v. Delaware River Port AuthoritySupreme Court of New Jersey · 2002
- PHYSIO GP, INC. v. Naifeh, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2010
- PHYSIO GP, INC. v. Naifeh, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2010
- Physio GP, Inc., Physio, Ltd, Tanja Saadat and Shawn Saadat v. Natalie Naifeh, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2010
- VanBuren v. GrubbSupreme Court of Virginia · 2012