The Pennsylvania Superior Court held that an unverified complaint is sufficient to satisfy the statute of limitations. The plaintiffs sued after an incident at a strip club, alleging assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. The defendants filed preliminary objections, claiming that the plaintiffs failed to include…
The Pennsylvania Superior Court held that an unverified complaint is sufficient to satisfy the statute of limitations. The plaintiffs sued after an incident at a strip club, alleging assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. The defendants filed preliminary objections, claiming that the plaintiffs failed to include a verification with the complaint.… Continue reading Alatrista v. Diamond Club
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the Commonwealth Court correctly held that Appellees had individual and associational standing to challenge four of the City of Harrisburg’s ordinances regulating firearms. Appellees filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against the City, seeking to have ordinances declared unconstitutional and statutorily preempted. Appellees asserted the City’s… Continue reading Firearm Owners Against Crime v. City of Harrisburg Mayor Papenfuse
In a companion case to Quincy Clinic Co. v. Palmiter, which we summarized last week, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that the Medical Marijuana Act (“MMA”) creates a private remedy for violations of § 2103 of the Act, which focuses on protecting employee-patients certified to use medical marijuana from employers who would penalize them for… Continue reading Palmiter v. Commonwealth Health Sys.
This case presented the Pennsylvania Superior Court with an issue of first impression: Whether the Medical Marijuana Act (“MMA”) creates a private remedy for violations of § 2103 of the Act, which focuses on protecting employee-patients certified to use medical marijuana from employers who would penalize them for availing themselves of the benefits conferred by… Continue reading Scranton Quincy Clinic Co. v. Palmiter
Van Divner sued Sweger and Progressive Insurance Co. after a car accident. The trial court granted Progressive’s preliminary objections and transferred venue per its interpretation of the forum selection clause in Van Divner’s auto insurance policy. The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed, finding that the trial court erroneously construed the forum selection clause in the policy.
This was an appeal from an order dismissing an insurance coverage action. Penn Psychiatric (Insured) claimed that it was entitled to coverage under an employment practices insurance policy for an action brought against Insured and one of its therapists by two former patients who had no employment relationship with Insured. The trial court sustained United… Continue reading Penn Psychiatric Ctr., Inc. v. United States Liab. Ins. Co.
In Weeks v. Dep’t of Human Servs., the petitioners filed a class action to have Act 12 of 2019 declared unconstitutional, and its enforcement enjoined. Act 12 eliminated the General Assistance cash benefit program. The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court sustained the Department’s preliminary objections and ruled that the petition for review failed to state a claim… Continue reading Weeks v. Dep’t of Human Servs.
In Allegheny Reprod. Health Ctr. v. Pa. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., Petitioners, who are medical providers licensed to provide abortion services, filed a petition for review seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, asserting that Sections 3215(c) and (j) of the Abortion Control Act are unconstitutional because they discriminate against pregnant women enrolled in Medical Assistance who… Continue reading Allegheny Reprod. Health Ctr. v. Pa. Dep’t of Hum. Servs.
In Sayers v. Heritage Valley Medical Group, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the Court of Common Pleas’ order sustaining the defendants’ preliminary objections. The defendants alleged that the plaintiff failed to toll the statute of limitations through the issuance of a writ of summons. The defendants raised this failure in preliminary objections. The plaintiffs did… Continue reading Sayers v. Heritage Valley Medical Group, Inc.
In Khalil v. Cole, the PA Superior Court held that shifting the names of an underlying legal doctrine from lis pendens to res judicata in Preliminary Objections was proper, that the operative facts and issues raised by the plaintiff in another lawsuit still pending before the Superior Court on appeal are the same, and that the trial… Continue reading Khalil v. Cole