Legal Opinion

Clark v. Lancaster City Housing Authority

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster County

Decided March 4, 1992No. 4635 of 1991PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PEREZOUS, J.,

Before the court are the preliminary objections of the defendants, Thomas L. Harkless and the Lancaster City Housing Authority, to the complaint of plaintiff, Michael C. Clark. The preliminary objections are in the nature of a motion to strike and a demurrer. Briefs have been filed and oral argument is denied; thus, the motion is ready for disposition. For the reasons expressed below, defendants’ objections will be sustained.

Plaintiff seeks an award of compensatory and punitive damages against defendants for alleged violations of the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law, 43 P.S. §1421…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Geary v. United States Steel Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  2. Clay v. Advanced Computer Applications, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  3. Buchanan v. Brentwood Federal Savings & Loan Assoc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  4. Paul v. Lankenau HospitalSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  5. William Goldman Theatres, Inc. v. DanaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1961

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Bensinger v. University of Pittsburgh Medical CenterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  2. P. Zenak v. Police Athletic League of Philadelphia, City of PhiladelphiaCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2016

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API