Legal Opinion

Ziemba v. Hagerty

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 15, 1969No. 69PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Appellant has petitioned for leave to appeal the decision of the Superior Court. That Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, which had sustained appellee’s preliminary objections.

The preliminary objections filed in the Court of Common Pleas raised the statute of - limitations as a bar to appellant’s action.

Rule 1030 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure requires affirmative defenses such as the statute of limitations to be raised as new matter in a responsive pleading. Various prior decisions of this Court have undoubtedly…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Callery v. Blythe Township Municipal AuthoritySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
  2. Brown v. HahnSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
  3. Mangino v. Steel Contracting Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1967
  4. WILL v. MaloskySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Lamp v. HeymanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
  2. Duffee v. JudsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  3. Stein v. RichardsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  4. Royal Oil & Gas Corp. v. Tunnelton Mining Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
  5. Fudula v. Keystone Wire & Iron Works, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1981

15 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