defendant to prepare defense in Pennsylvania

2026Unified Sportsmen of Pa. v. Pa. Game Comm'n, 950 A.2d 1120, 1134 (Pa. Commw. 2008) (holding that to be sufficiently specific, “the complaint need not cite evidence but only those facts necessary for the defendant to prepare a defense”).

2023“To determine if a pleading is sufficiently specific, a court must ascertain whether the facts alleged are sufficiently specific to enable a defendant to prepare his defense.” Unified Sportsmen of Pa. v. Pa. Game Comm’n, 950 A.2d 1120, 1134 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). 9 Shipman declared in the Complaint that the Board should have publicly discussed the names of residents considered to fill Boehmer’s vacancy, and that the Board’s “unbridled secrecy” must be stopped.

2019Rambo v. Greene, 906 A.2d 1232, 1236 (Pa. Super. 2006) ("The pertinent question under Rule 1028(a)(3) [governing insufficient specificity of a pleading] is "whether the complaint is sufficiently clear to enable the defendant to prepare his defense[.]").

2017Under Rule 1028(a)(3), the pertinent question is “whether the complaint is sufficiently clear to enable the defendant to prepare his defense,” or “whether the plaintiff’s complaint informs the defendant with accuracy and completeness of the specific basis on which recovery is sought so that [the defendant] may know without question upon what grounds to make his defense.” Rambo v. Greene, 906 A.2d 1232, 1236 (Pa.Super. 2006).

2016The complaint must be "sufficiently clear to enable the defendant to prepare his defense or ... [inform] the defendant with accuracy and completeness of the specific basis on which recovery is sought so that he may know without question upon what grounds to make his defense." McNeil v. Jordan, 814 A.2d 234, 237-38 (Pa. Super. 2002).

2009The question presented by preliminary objection under Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(3) is “whether the complaint is sufficiently clear to enable the defendant to prepare his defense or [if it] informs the defendant with accuracy and completeness of the specific basis on which recovery is sought so that he may know without question upon which grounds to make his defense.” McNeil v. Jordan, 814 A.2d 234, 237-38 (Pa. Super. 2002).

2015Allegations will withstand a challenge under Pa.R.C.P. 1019 if they contain averments of all of the facts the plaintiff will eventually have to prove in order to recover, and they are sufficiently specific so as to enable the defendant to prepare their defense, Lerner v. Lerner, 954 A.2d 1229, 1236 (2008).

2010Lerner v. Lerner, 954 A.2d 1229, 1235 (Pa. Super. 2008); Yacoub v. Lehigh Valley Medical Associates, 805 A.2d 579, 588 (Pa. Super. 2002). “[T]he complaint need not cite evidence but only those facts necessary for the defendant to prepare a defense.” Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania v. Pennsylvania Game Commission 950 A.2d 1120, 1134 (Pa. Commw. 2008).

2000National Recovery Systems v. Frebraro, 287 Pa. Super. 442, 444 , 430 A.2d 686, 687 (1981). “[I]n pleading its case, the complaint need not cite evidence but only those facts necessary for the defendant to prepare a defense.” PennDOT v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 33 Pa. Commw. 1, 11 , 380 A.2d 1308, 1313 (1977).

2000National Recovery Systems v. Frebraro, 287 Pa. Super. 442, 444 , 430 A.2d 686, 687 (1981). “[I]n pleading its case, the complaint need not cite evidence but only those facts necessary for the defendant to prepare a defense.” PennDOT v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 33 Pa. Commw. 1, 11 , 380 A.2d 1308, 1313 (1977).

2006Thq Baker court stated that “allegation will withstand challenge under 1019(a) if (1) they contain averments of all facts that plaintiff will eventually have to prove in order to recover . . . and (2) they are sufficiently specific as to enable the defendant to prepare his defense.” Id. at 350 , 324 A.2d at 505, 506 . (citation omitted) “Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a) has been construed to mean that a complaint must not only apprise the defendant of the claim being asserted, but it must also summarize the essential facts to support the claim.” Krajsa v. Keypunch Inc., 424 Pa. Super. 230, 235 , 622 A.2d 355

1979The general standard to be applied in determining the sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint is set forth in Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a): “The material facts on which a cause of action or defense is based shall be stated in a concise and summary form.” This language has been interpreted to require averment of all the relevant facts that plaintiffs must eventually prove in order to recover, with sufficient specificity to enable the defendant to prepare his defense: Baker v. Rangos, 229 Pa. Superior Ct. 333 , 324 A. 2d 498 (1974).

2021Commonwealth by Shapiro v. Golden Gate National Senior Care, LLC, 194 A.3d 1010, 1029-30 (Pa. 2018); Wicks v. Milzoco Builders, Inc., 470 A.2d 86, 90 (Pa. 1983) (holding the plaintiff need only plead ultimate facts; evidentiary facts need not be set forth in the complaint); United Refrigerator Co. v. Applebaum, 189 A.2d 253, 255 (Pa. 1963); Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania v. Pennsylvania Game Commission, 950 A.2d 1120, 1134 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (holding that to be sufficiently specific, “the complaint need not cite evidence but only those facts necessary for the defendant to prepare a defense”

2019Commonwealth by Shapiro v. Golden Gate National Senior Care LLC, 194 A.3d 1010, 1030 (Pa. 2018); Rambo, 906 A.2d at 1236 ; Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania v. Pennsylvania Game Commission, 950 A.2d 1120, 1134 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008).

2021Commonwealth by Shapiro v. Golden Gate National Senior Care, LLC, 194 A.3d 1010, 1029-30 (Pa. 2018); Wicks v. Milzoco Builders, Inc., 470 A.2d 86, 90 (Pa. 1983) (holding the plaintiff need only plead ultimate facts; evidentiary facts need not be set forth in the complaint); United Refrigerator Co. v. Applebaum, 189 A.2d 253, 255 (Pa. 1963); Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania v. Pennsylvania Game Commission, 950 A.2d 1120, 1134 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (holding that to be sufficiently specific, “the complaint need not cite evidence but only those facts necessary for the defendant to prepare a defense”

2020United Refrigerator Co. v. Applebaum, . . . 189 A.2d 253, 255 ([Pa.] 1963); Unified Sportsmen of Pa. v. Pa. Game Comm’n, 950 A.2d 1120, 1134 (Pa. [Cmwlth.] 2008) (holding that to be sufficiently specific, ‘the complaint need not cite evidence but only those facts necessary for the defendant to prepare a defense’).

2020We have long recognized that ‘the line between pleading facts and evidence is not always bright[,]’ but distilled the specificity requirement into two conditions that ‘must always be met: [t]he pleadings must adequately explain the nature of the claim to the opposing party so as to permit him to prepare a defense and they must be sufficient to convince the court that the averments are not merely subterfuge.’ Bata v. Cent.-Penn Na[‘l] Bank of Phila[.], . . . 224 A.2d 174, 179 ([Pa.] 1966); see also Martin [v. Lancaster Battery Co., Inc.], 606 A.2d [444,] 448 [(Pa. 1992)].

2001Bata v. Central-Penn National Bank of Philadelphia, 423 Pa. 373, 380 , 224 A.2d 174, 179 (1966); Sevin, 417 Pa. Super. at 7 , 611 A.2d at 1235 .

2013Foster v. Peat Marwick Main & Co., 138 Pa. Cmwlth. 147, 587 A.2d 382 (1991) (citing Commonwealth v. National Apartment Leasing Company, 108 Pa. Cmwtlh. 300, 529 A.2d 1157 (1987); McGinn v. Valloti, 363 Pa. Super. 88 , 525 A.2d 732 (1987)).

2013Foster v. Peat Marwick Main & Co., 138 Pa. Cmwlth. 147, 587 A.2d 382 (1991) (citing Commonwealth v. National Apartment Leasing Company, 108 Pa. Cmwtlh. 300, 529 A.2d 1157 (1987); McGinn v. Valloti, 363 Pa. Super. 88 , 525 A.2d 732 (1987)).

2006In evaluating whether a pleading is sufficiently specific, the question is “whether the pleading is sufficiently clear to enable the defendant to prepare his defense.” Paz v. Commonwealth, Department of Corrections, 135 Pa. Commw. 162, 170 , 580 A.2d 452, 456 (1990).

2006In evaluating whether a pleading is sufficiently specific, the question is “whether the pleading is sufficiently clear to enable the defendant to prepare his defense.” Paz v. Commonwealth, Department of Corrections, 135 Pa. Commw. 162, 170 , 580 A.2d 452, 456 (1990).

2024See id.; see also Commonwealth v. Davalos, 779 A.2d 1190, 1194 (Pa. Super. 2001) (same).

2021Commonwealth by Shapiro v. Golden Gate National Senior Care, LLC, 194 A.3d 1010, 1029-30 (Pa. 2018); Wicks v. Milzoco Builders, Inc., 470 A.2d 86, 90 (Pa. 1983) (holding the plaintiff need only plead ultimate facts; evidentiary facts need not be set forth in the complaint); United Refrigerator Co. v. Applebaum, 189 A.2d 253, 255 (Pa. 1963); Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania v. Pennsylvania Game Commission, 950 A.2d 1120, 1134 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (holding that to be sufficiently specific, “the complaint need not cite evidence but only those facts necessary for the defendant to prepare a defense”

2010Lerner v. Lerner, 954 A.2d 1229, 1235 (Pa. Super. 2008); Yacoub v. Lehigh Valley Medical Associates, 805 A.2d 579, 588 (Pa. Super. 2002). “[T]he complaint need not cite evidence but only those facts necessary for the defendant to prepare a defense.” Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania v. Pennsylvania Game Commission 950 A.2d 1120, 1134 (Pa. Commw. 2008).

2006Thq Baker court stated that “allegation will withstand challenge under 1019(a) if (1) they contain averments of all facts that plaintiff will eventually have to prove in order to recover . . . and (2) they are sufficiently specific as to enable the defendant to prepare his defense.” Id. at 350 , 324 A.2d at 505, 506 . (citation omitted) “Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a) has been construed to mean that a complaint must not only apprise the defendant of the claim being asserted, but it must also summarize the essential facts to support the claim.” Krajsa v. Keypunch Inc., 424 Pa. Super. 230, 235 , 622 A.2d 355

2006Thq Baker court stated that “allegation will withstand challenge under 1019(a) if (1) they contain averments of all facts that plaintiff will eventually have to prove in order to recover . . . and (2) they are sufficiently specific as to enable the defendant to prepare his defense.” Id. at 350 , 324 A.2d at 505, 506 . (citation omitted) “Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a) has been construed to mean that a complaint must not only apprise the defendant of the claim being asserted, but it must also summarize the essential facts to support the claim.” Krajsa v. Keypunch Inc., 424 Pa. Super. 230, 235 , 622 A.2d 355

2004Weiss v. Equibank, 313 Pa. Super. 446, 453 , 460 A.2d 271, 274 (1983); PennDOT v. Shipley Humble Oil Co., 29 Pa. Commw. 171, 173 , 370 A.2d 438, 439 (1977).

2004Weiss v. Equibank, 313 Pa. Super. 446, 453 , 460 A.2d 271, 274 (1983); PennDOT v. Shipley Humble Oil Co., 29 Pa. Commw. 171, 173 , 370 A.2d 438, 439 (1977).

2004Weiss v. Equibank, 313 Pa. Super. 446, 453 , 460 A.2d 271, 274 (1983); PennDOT v. Shipley Humble Oil Co., 29 Pa. Commw. 171, 173 , 370 A.2d 438, 439 (1977).

2004Weiss v. Equibank, 313 Pa. Super. 446, 453 , 460 A.2d 271, 274 (1983); PennDOT v. Shipley Humble Oil Co., 29 Pa. Commw. 171, 173 , 370 A.2d 438, 439 (1977).

2002Therefore, we must decide first on what ground the trial court granted the preliminary objection that lead to the dismissal of the Complaint. ¶ 9 Regarding Pa.R.Civ.P. 1028(a)(3), in Ammlung v. City of Chester, 224 Pa.Super. 47 , 302 A.2d 491 , 498 n. 36 (1973) (quoting 1 Goodrich-Amram § 1017(b)-9), we noted: The ... question under Rule [1028(a)(3) ] 3 is “whether the complaint is sufficiently clear to enable the defendant to prepare his defense,” or “wheth *238 er the plaintiffs complaint informs the defendant with accuracy and completeness of the specific basis on which recovery is sought s

2002Therefore, we must decide first on what ground the trial court granted the preliminary objection that lead to the dismissal of the Complaint. ¶ 9 Regarding Pa.R.Civ.P. 1028(a)(3), in Ammlung v. City of Chester, 224 Pa.Super. 47 , 302 A.2d 491 , 498 n. 36 (1973) (quoting 1 Goodrich-Amram § 1017(b)-9), we noted: The ... question under Rule [1028(a)(3) ] 3 is “whether the complaint is sufficiently clear to enable the defendant to prepare his defense,” or “wheth *238 er the plaintiffs complaint informs the defendant with accuracy and completeness of the specific basis on which recovery is sought s

2001Smith v. Wagner, 403 Pa. Super. 316, 319 , 588 A.2d 1308, 1310 (1991).

2001Smith v. Wagner, 403 Pa. Super. 316, 319 , 588 A.2d 1308, 1310 (1991).

2000National Recovery Systems v. Frebraro, 287 Pa. Super. 442, 444 , 430 A.2d 686, 687 (1981). “[I]n pleading its case, the complaint need not cite evidence but only those facts necessary for the defendant to prepare a defense.” PennDOT v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 33 Pa. Commw. 1, 11 , 380 A.2d 1308, 1313 (1977).

2000National Recovery Systems v. Frebraro, 287 Pa. Super. 442, 444 , 430 A.2d 686, 687 (1981). “[I]n pleading its case, the complaint need not cite evidence but only those facts necessary for the defendant to prepare a defense.” PennDOT v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 33 Pa. Commw. 1, 11 , 380 A.2d 1308, 1313 (1977).

1999“A demurrer will not be sustained unless the face of the complaint shows that the law will not permit recovery, and any doubts should be resolved against sustaining the demurrer.” Giffin v. Chronister, 151 Pa. Commw. 286, 290 , 616 A.2d 1070, 1073 (1992). “[I]n pleading its case, the complaint need not cite evidence but only those facts necessary for the defendant to prepare a defense.” PennDOT v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 33 Pa. Commw. 1, 11 , 380 A.2d 1308, 1313 (1977).

1999“A demurrer will not be sustained unless the face of the complaint shows that the law will not permit recovery, and any doubts should be resolved against sustaining the demurrer.” Giffin v. Chronister, 151 Pa. Commw. 286, 290 , 616 A.2d 1070, 1073 (1992). “[I]n pleading its case, the complaint need not cite evidence but only those facts necessary for the defendant to prepare a defense.” PennDOT v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 33 Pa. Commw. 1, 11 , 380 A.2d 1308, 1313 (1977).

1988See also City of Philadelphia et al. v. Shapp et al., 44 Pa. Commw. 303 , 403 A.2d 1043 (1979).

1988See also City of Philadelphia et al. v. Shapp et al., 44 Pa. Commw. 303 , 403 A.2d 1043 (1979).