Legal Opinion

Schmitt v. Seaspray-Sharkline, Inc.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 1, 1987No. 1725PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

ROWLEY, Judge:

Appellant Schmitt appeals from an order sustaining the preliminary objections of defendants Seaspray-Sharkline, Inc. and William Cohen. Appellant contests the trial court’s order only as to defendant Cohen, whose preliminary objections were sustained for lack of personal jurisdiction. 1 The issue is whether the trial court erred in finding that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Mr. Cohen would be “unreasonable or unjustifiable.”

Appellant is the administrator of the Estate of Gerard E. Schmitt who died after suffering quadriplegia as a result of…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. LUITWEILER v. Northchester Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  2. Temtex Products, Inc. v. KramerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  3. Whalen v. Walt Disney World Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  4. Dash v. Wilap Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  5. Holt Hauling & Warehousing Systems, Inc. v. Aronow Roofing Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1983

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

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Corestates Bank, N.A. v. CutilloSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  2. Deyarmin v. Consolidated Rail Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  3. American Housing Trust, III v. JonesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  4. Petty v. Hospital Service Ass'n of Northeastern PennsylvaniaCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
  5. Scoggins v. ScogginsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989

18 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