Cardenas v. Schober

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• \[I]t is not necessary that the plaintiff identify the specific legal theory underlying the complaint.\
• \We have held that it is not necessary that the plaintiff identify the specific legal theory underlying the complaint\
• “it is the duty of the court to discover from the facts alleged in a complaint the cause of action, if any, stated therein.”
• would-be legatees could not recover from executor because they were not named legatees in decedent’s will and handwritten documents purporting to bequeath money and property to them did not constitute otherwise valid will
• would-be legatees could not 11 Appellants phrased their three questions on appeal as follows: 1. Whether the Superior Court erred when it determined, in a published decision, contrary to Guy v. Liederbach, 501 Pa. 47, 459 A.2d 744 (1983
• “Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer require the court to resolve the issues solely on the basis of the pleadings; no testimony or other evidence outside of the complaint may be considered to dispose of the legal issues presented by the demurrer”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).