Sucevic v. Johnson

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Sucevic v. Johnson

255 A.2d 556, 435 Pa. 128, 1969 Pa. LEXIS 701

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 27, 1969

DocketAppeal, 66

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 255 A.2d 556 (Sucevic v. Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sucevic v. Johnson, 255 A.2d 556, 435 Pa. 128, 1969 Pa. LEXIS 701 (Pa. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This action in trespass seeks recovery for personal injuries suffered by the plaintiff in the course of his employment with a subcontractor engaged in performing the masónry work in connection with the construction of a building. One of the defendants, the general contractor, filed preliminary objections to the complaint challenging, inter alia, the jurisdiction of the Common Pleas Court to entertain the action. The gen *129 eral contractor contends that exclusive jurisdiction is under The Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act of June 2, 1915, P. L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. §1 et seq. The lower court overruled the preliminary objections and this appeal followed. We quash.

The order appealed from is interlocutory and does not involve a jurisdictional question within the meaning of the Act of March 5, 1925, P. L. 23, §1, 12 P.S. §672. See Repyneck v. Tarantino, 403 Pa. 300, 169 A. 2d 527 (1961).

Appeal quashed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This action in trespass seeks recovery for personal injuries suffered by the plaintiff in the course of his employment with a subcontractor engaged in performing the masónry work in connection with the construction of a building. One of the defendants, the general contractor, filed preliminary objections to the complaint challenging, inter alia, the jurisdiction of the Common Pleas Court to entertain the action. The gen *129 eral contractor contends that exclusive jurisdiction is under The Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act of June 2, 1915, P. L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. §1 et seq. The lower court overruled the preliminary objections and this appeal followed. We quash.

The order appealed from is interlocutory and does not involve a jurisdictional question within the meaning of the Act of March 5, 1925, P. L. 23, §1, 12 P.S. §672. See Repyneck v. Tarantino, 403 Pa. 300, 169 A. 2d 527 (1961).

Appeal quashed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.2d 556, 435 Pa. 128, 1969 Pa. LEXIS 701, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sucevic-v-johnson-pa-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack