268 Pa. Super. 572 - DelConte v. Stefonick’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently November 2016 · most notably 332 Pa. Super. 48 - Bartanus v. Lis (1984), 413 Pa. Super. 128 - McClellan v. Health Maintenance Organization (1992)
36 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.
Relationships
Relies on Fried v. Fisher · Shane v. Hoffmann · Schreiber v. Republic Intermodal Corp. · Murphy & Slota v. Burke · 251 Pa. Super. 184 - Di Sante v. Russ Financial Co.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff is not obligated to state the legal theory or theories underlying his complaint. Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a) requires only allegations of the “material facts on which a cause of action ... is based.” Assertions of legal rights and obligations in a complaint may be construed as conclusions of law, which have no place in a pleading and need not be denied in preliminary objections. Goodrich-Amram 2d, Standard Pennsylvania Practice § 1019(a): 12 (collecting cases). This system of fact pleading may sometimes cause both the court and the defendant uncertainty as to the legal grounds of the complaint. Here, for example, the trial court discerned only one possible cause of action, that of fraud and deceit. The complaint, however, stated at least one other cause of action. The obligation to discover the cause or causes of actions is on the court: the plaintiff need not identify them. See Schreiber v. Republic Intermodal Corp., 473 Pa. 614 , 375 A.2d 1285 (1977). Therefore, appellant has preserved his claim that the complaint states a cause of action other than fraud and deceit, even though he did not identify any such cause in his complaint.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(1) the promisor must make a promise that he should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee; (2) the promise must actually induce such action or forbearance; and (3) injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.