Nederostek v. Endicott-Johnson Shoe Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Roberts,
In this suit for breach of implied warranty of fitness, the court below granted defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings filed pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1034. Therefore, we must consider as presently admitted by defendants all well-pleaded allegations of fact in the complaint. Smith v. Brown-Borhek Co., 414 Pa. 325, 200 A. 2d 398 (1964).
The crucial paragraph in the complaint alleges: “On or about June 14, 1961, the Plaintiff was in the employ of the Giant Portland Cement Co., . . . and on said date Plaintiff commenced wearing a pair of safety work shoes…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Bogojavlensky v. LoganSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
- Smith v. Brown-Borhek Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
- Emery v. MetznerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
3Cited by14 opinions
- Bata v. Central-Penn Nat. Bank of Phila.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
- Farber v. ENGLECommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- DiAndrea v. Reliance Savings & Loan Ass'nSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
- Rice v. RiceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
- SN, INC. v. LongSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.