Court Opinion

ID: 9746259
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 14:10:07.343865+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:11.270918
License: Public Domain

KELLEY, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
A ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings in this court’s original jurisdiction is in the nature of a demurrer, so that all of the opposing parties’ allegations of fact are viewed as true, and only those allegations specifically admitted may be considered against that party. Montgomery Hospital v. Medical Professional Liability Catastrophe Loss Fund, 686 A.2d 432 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996). A motion for judgment on the pleadings in this court’s original jurisdiction will summarily dispose of a case only where there exists no genuine issue of material fact and the *1230moving party clearly is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id.
Herein, the majority finds that there are no facts or questions of law in dispute. I disagree. I believe that if the allegations of fact, as alleged in Large’s new matter, are taken as true, the entry of judgment on the pleadings in favor of the Attorney General would be improper. Large raises issues of material fact in his new matter particularly with respect to the defenses of waiver and laches. Laches is a factual question, and it can be determined only upon examination of all the circumstances, and generally not simply on the basis of pleadings. Lehner v. Montgomery, 180 Pa.Super. 493, 119 A.2d 626 (1956).
Accordingly, I believe that the motion for judgment on the pleadings should be denied.