Legal Opinion

Chen v. Chen

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 20, 2006No. 89 MAP 2004PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

Justice BAER.

We granted allowance of appeal to address a question of first impression before this Court concerning whether a child may bring suit or intervene in an action to enforce provisions of her parents’ property settlement agreement. The Superior Court and the trial court below held that the child in this case could intervene in her mother’s support action because the child was a third party intended beneficiary under her parents’ property settlement agreement pursuant to the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 302, as adopted by this Court in Guy v. Liederbach, 501 Pa. 47, 459…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Troxel v. GranvilleSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. Guy v. LiederbachSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  3. Scarpitti v. WeborgSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  4. SPIRES Et Ux. v. Hanover Fire Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1950
  5. Gruber v. GruberSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. McMullen v. KutzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
  2. Global Ground Support, LLC v. Glazer Enterprises, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2008
  3. Flex Homes, Inc. v. Ritz-Craft Corp. of Michigan, Inc.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2010
  4. Trizechahn Gateway LLC v. TitusSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  5. Advertising Specialty Institute v. Hall-Erickson, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2010

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API