Legal Opinion

Hineline v. Stroudsburg Electric Supply Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 29, 1991No. 00985PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MONTEMURO, Judge:

Appellant, Michael I. Hineline, brought this action against appellees, Stroudsburg Electric Supply Company, Inc., Stephen F. Sullivan and Sidney Friedman, alleging invasion of privacy, violations of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 5701 et seq., and violations of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2520. The trial court granted appellees’ preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer and dismissed the complaint, concluding that pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1020(d),…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Daniel Adams Associates, Inc. v. Rimbach Publishing Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  2. Hineline v. Stroudsburg Electric Supply Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  3. Jones v. Keystone InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  4. Stokes v. Loyal Order of Moose Lodge 696Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  5. Tanenbaum v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Marinari v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  2. Cardenas v. SchoberSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  3. Arch v. American Tobacco Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1997
  4. Barnes v. American Tobacco Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1997
  5. Swift v. Radnor TownshipCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2009

14 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