demurrer test in Pennsylvania

2021“Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer test the legal sufficiency of the complaint.” Id.

2015Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer test “the legal sufficiency of the complaint.” Haun v. Community Health Systems, Inc., 14 A. 3d 120, 123 (Pa. Super. 2011).

2015“Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer test the legal sufficiency of the complaint.” White v. PennDOT, 738 A.2d 27, 31 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999).

2005Failure To State a Claim Upon Which Relief May Be Granted “Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer test the legal sufficiency of the complaint.” Hykes v. Hughes, 835 A.2d 382 (Pa. Super. 2003); citing White v. PennDOT, 738 A.2d 27, 31 (Pa. Commw. 1999).When a defendant avers that a complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted, he must provide the court with specific grounds as to why the complaint in fact fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

2025“Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer test the legal sufficiency of the complaint.” Id. (citation omitted).

2025“Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer test the legal sufficiency of the complaint.” Id. (citation omitted).

2025The trial court must resolve preliminary objections “solely on the basis of the pleadings; no testimony or other evidence outside of the complaint may be considered[.]” Hill v. Ofalt, 85 A.3d 540, 547 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted).

2024See Hill, 85 A.3d at 547 . -9- J-A05031-24 In reviewing the defendants’ demurrers, however, the trial court did not admit as true the factual allegations pleaded in Pencoyd’s third amended complaint.

2025“Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer test the legal sufficiency of the complaint.” Catanzaro v. Pennell, 238 A.3d 504, 507 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citation omitted).

2024Appellants challenge the trial court’s order sustaining Appellees’ preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. -6- J-A05002-24 1028(a)(4).2 “Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer test the legal sufficiency of the complaint.” Catanzaro v. Pennell, 238 A.3d 504, 507 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citation omitted).

2024When considering preliminary objections [in the nature of a demurrer], all material facts set forth in the challenged pleadings are admitted as true, as well as all inferences reasonably deducible therefrom.” Richmond v. McHale, 35 A.3d 779, 783 (Pa. Super. 2012).

2020(See “Preliminary Objections to [Appellant’s] Complaint,” 10/5/18 at ¶ 9; “Preliminary Objections to [Appellant’s] Amended Complaint,” 2/25/19 at ¶ 6; “Preliminary Objections to [Appellant’s] Second Amended Complaint,” 4/23/19 at ¶ 7.) “Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer test the legal sufficiency of the complaint.” Richmond v. McHale, 35 A.3d 779, 783 (Pa.Super. 2012) (citation omitted; emphasis added).

2025“The case for a permanent injunction ‘must be made by a very strong showing, one stronger than that required for a restraining-type injunction.’” City of Philadelphia v. Shih Tai Pien, 224 A.3d 71 , 83 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019). “[F]or the opposing party to prevail on preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer to such a claim for injunctive relief, the court 20 must find that the [complaint] is clearly insufficient to establish a right to injunctive relief, and any doubt must be resolved in overruling the demurrer.” P.J.S. v. Pa. State Ethics Comm’n, 669 A.2d 1105, 1113 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (ci

2016(Compl.¶¶ 101-04.) Though ultimately, the party seeking injunctive relief must prove, with probative evidence that the "right to relief is clear," a remedy at law is insufficient, and "greater injury will result from refusing rather than granting the relief requested," a court of common pleas should only sustain a preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer to a claim for injunctive relief if the court "find[s] that the petition is clearly insufficient to establish a right to injunctive relief, and any doubt must be resolved in overruling the demurrer." P.J.S. v. Pennsylvania State Ethic

2015Similarly, in 220 Partnership v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 650 A.2d 1094 (Pa. Super. 1994), this Court made the following observation: [A] court must severely restrict the principle of judicial notice, as the purpose of a demurrer is to challenge the legal basis for the complaint, not its factual truthfulness. . . .

2009When considering preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, a court must severely restrict the principle of judicial notice, as the purpose of a demurrer is to challenge the legal basis for the complaint, not its factual truthfulness. 220 Partnership v. Philadelphia Electric Company, 437 Pa.Super. 650 , 650 A.2d 1094, 1096 (1994) (citations omitted).

2013This court, however, would not have dismissed counts III and IV pursuant to the gist of the action doctrine as there was no contractual relationship between First Senior and either Suib or ATAC. 2 A. Standards and Scopes of Review “Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer test the legal sufficiency of the complaint.” Hykes v. Hughes, 835 A.2d 382, 383 (Pa. Super.

2005Failure To State a Claim Upon Which Relief May Be Granted “Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer test the legal sufficiency of the complaint.” Hykes v. Hughes, 835 A.2d 382 (Pa. Super. 2003); citing White v. PennDOT, 738 A.2d 27, 31 (Pa. Commw. 1999).When a defendant avers that a complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted, he must provide the court with specific grounds as to why the complaint in fact fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

2004Simmons v. Township of Moon, 144 Pa.Cmwlth. 198 , 601 A.2d 425 (1991).

2004Simmons v. Township of Moon, 144 Pa.Cmwlth. 198 , 601 A.2d 425 (1991).

2017Nevertheless, our courts have also routinely recited the sufficiency standard without the use of the term “verdict-winner.” See Commonwealth v. Duncan, 473 Pa. 62 , 373 A.2d 1051, 1053 (1977) (“The test to be applied in ruling on either a demurrer or a claim that the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction is whether accepting as true the prosecution’s evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom, it is sufficient to support a finding by the jury that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”); Commonwealth v. Hankins, 251 Pa.Super. 137 , 380 A.2d 415, 416 (1977) (“The t

2017Nevertheless, our courts have also routinely recited the sufficiency standard without the use of the term “verdict-winner.” See Commonwealth v. Duncan, 473 Pa. 62 , 373 A.2d 1051, 1053 (1977) (“The test to be applied in ruling on either a demurrer or a claim that the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction is whether accepting as true the prosecution’s evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom, it is sufficient to support a finding by the jury that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”); Commonwealth v. Hankins, 251 Pa.Super. 137 , 380 A.2d 415, 416 (1977) (“The t

2017When considering preliminary objections, all material facts set forth in the challenged pleadings are admitted as true, as well as all inferences reasonably deducible therefrom.” P.J.A. v. H.C.N., 156 A.3d 284, 287 (Pa. Super. 2017) (per curiam) (citation omitted).

2017When considering preliminary objections, all material facts set forth in the challenged pleadings are admitted as true, as well as all inferences reasonably deducible therefrom.” P.J.A. v. H.C.N., 156 A.3d 284, 287 (Pa. Super. 2017) (per curiam) (citation omitted).

2015To prevail in a punitive damages claim, plaintiff must establish that: “(1) a defendant had a subjective appreciation of the risk of harm to which the plaintiff was exposed” and that (2) the defendant “acted, or failed to act, as the case may be, in conscious disregard of that risk.” Hutchison v. Luddy, 870 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. 2005) Accepting as true “all well-pleaded material facts set forth in the complaint and all inferences fairly deducible from those facts” with any doubt being “resolved by the overruling of the demurrer,” the court concludes that plaintiffs plead sufficient facts to estab

2015To prevail in a punitive damages claim, plaintiff must establish that: “(1) a defendant had a subjective appreciation of the risk of harm to which the plaintiff was exposed” and that (2) the defendant “acted, or failed to act, as the case may be, in conscious disregard of that risk.” Hutchison v. Luddy, 870 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. 2005) Accepting as true “all well-pleaded material facts set forth in the complaint and all inferences fairly deducible from those facts” with any doubt being “resolved by the overruling of the demurrer,” the court concludes that plaintiffs plead sufficient facts to estab

2015Richardson v. Beard 942 A.2d 911, 913 (Pa. Commw. 2008) "Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer test the legal sufficiency of the plaintiffs complaint.".Sexton v. FNC Bank 792 A.2d 602, 604 (Pa. Super. 2002) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 572 Pa. 725 , 814 A.2d 678 (2002).

2005(Appellant’s Brief at 1, 9). ¶ 5 When reviewing the appropriateness of a trial court’s ruling on preliminary objections, we note: “Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer test the legal sufficiency of the plaintiffs complaint.” Sexton v. PNC Bank, 792 A.2d 602, 604 (Pa.Super.2002).

2002See Fabinyi, 650 A.2d at 899 .

2002See Fabinyi, 650 A.2d at 899 .

2001In Wurth v. City of Philadelphia, 136 Pa. Commw. 629 , 584 A.2d 403 (1990), the court held: “[t]he affirmative defense of governmental immunity may be raised by preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer where that defense is apparent on the face of the pleading; that is, that a cause of action is made against a governmental body and it is apparent on the face of the pleading that the cause of action does not fall within any of the exceptions to governmental immunity.

2001In Wurth v. City of Philadelphia, 136 Pa. Commw. 629 , 584 A.2d 403 (1990), the court held: “[t]he affirmative defense of governmental immunity may be raised by preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer where that defense is apparent on the face of the pleading; that is, that a cause of action is made against a governmental body and it is apparent on the face of the pleading that the cause of action does not fall within any of the exceptions to governmental immunity.

2025We reasoned that “[w]hen considering preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, a court must severely restrict the principle of judicial notice, as the purpose of a demurrer is to challenge the legal basis for the complaint, not its factual truthfulness.” Id. (quoting 220 Partnership v. Phila.

2006Preliminary objections which result in the dismissal of an action may be sustained only in those cases which are clear and free from doubt, and “[t]o be clear and free from doubt that dismissal is appropriate, it must appear with certainty that the law would not permit recovery by the plaintiff upon the facts averred.” Styers v. Bedford Grange Mutual Insurance Co., 900 A.2d 895, 898 (Pa. Super. 2006); Pennsy Supply Inc., supra. In making that determination, the court may consider only the factual allegations of the complaint and any exhibits attached thereto, Limbach Company LLC v. City of Phi

2014“To prevail on preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer to a claim for injunctive relief, a court must find that the [claim] is clearly insufficient to establish a right to injunctive relief, and any doubt must be resolved in favor of overruling the demurrer.” Harding v. Stickman, 823 A.2d 1110, 1111 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (citing P.J.S. v. Penn.

2005“In order to prevail on preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer to a claim for injunctive relief, a court must find that the petition is clearly insufficient to establish a right to injunctive relief, and any doubt must be resolved in favor of overruling the demurrer.” Harding, 823 A.2d at 1111 .

2006Martin v. Com., Dep't of Transp., 124 Pa.Cmwlth. 625 , 556 A.2d 969 (1989).

2006Martin v. Com., Dep't of Transp., 124 Pa.Cmwlth. 625 , 556 A.2d 969 (1989).

1977Compare Commonwealth v. Carroll, 443 Pa. 518 , 278 A.2d 898 (1971) and Commonwealth v. Collins, 436 Pa. 114 , 259 A.2d 160 (1969) with Commonwealth v. Miller, 465 Pa. 458 , 350 A.2d 855 (1976); Commonwealth v. Thomas, 465 Pa. 442 , 350 A.2d 847 (1976); Commonwealth v. Palmer, 448 Pa. 282 , 292 A.2d 921 (1972).

1977Compare Commonwealth v. Carroll, 443 Pa. 518 , 278 A.2d 898 (1971) and Commonwealth v. Collins, 436 Pa. 114 , 259 A.2d 160 (1969) with Commonwealth v. Miller, 465 Pa. 458 , 350 A.2d 855 (1976); Commonwealth v. Thomas, 465 Pa. 442 , 350 A.2d 847 (1976); Commonwealth v. Palmer, 448 Pa. 282 , 292 A.2d 921 (1972).

2025See Ward, 564 A.2d at 254 (stating that the granting of a demurrer is only proper when it is certain that no recovery is possible).16 Accordingly, we affirm the January 9, 2024 order overruling the preliminary objections pertaining to Appellees’ fraud in the execution and fraud in the inducement claims.

2025See Yocca, supra; Bardwell, supra; LeDonne, supra. Thus, granting a demurrer on this claim would not be appropriate.

2024Auth., 8 A.3d 1022, 1026 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (affirming a trial court’s order sustaining a demurrer to a claim under the vested rights doctrine because the municipality never issued a permit).

2024Accordingly, if a valid agreement to arbitrate exists and the dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement, the dispute must be submitted to arbitration and the [trial] court's denial of arbitration must be reversed.” Id. (citations omitted). ____________________________________________ objections that seek to compel arbitration is an interlocutory order appealable as of right pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 7320(a)(1) and Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(8).” In re Est. of Atkinson, 231 A.3d 891, 897 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citations omitted). -4- J-A23018-24 Here, Appellant asserts that the trial cou

2023See Commonwealth v. Moody, 843 A.2d 402, 405 (Pa. Super. 2004); Commonwealth v. Howe, 842 A.2d 436, 447 (Pa. Super. 2004).