2002 Pa. Super. 339
811 A.2d 1029
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Decided October 31, 2002
Superior Court of Pennsylvania · decided 2002-10-31
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 2002-10-31
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently August 2025 · most notably Yocca v. Pittsburgh Steelers Sports, Inc. (2004), 2005 Pa. Super. 328 - Hart v. Arnold (2005)
4 federal appellate · 52 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶1Concurring.
¶2¶ 1 I join the majority. I write separately only to suggest that, since the underlying agreement which forms the basis of Appellants’ claim contained the “release” clause, Appellees should not be required to plead the release as new matter.
¶3¶ 2 As the majority states, the trial court was “required to consider the entire contract.” Op. at p. 1039.