Legal Opinion

Griffith v. Kirsch

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 24, 2005PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION BY

McCAFFERY, J.:

¶ 1 Appellant, Roberta Griffith, executrix of the estate of Robert W. Kirsch, appeals from the order entered in the Butler County Court of Common Pleas granting in part and denying in part Appellant’s motion for reconsideration of the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s motion for partition. We hold that the language utilized in Robert W. Kirsch’s will (“Will”) did not create an unreasonable restraint on alienation and that the trial court properly deleted the word “and” from the Will. Further, we conclude that the trial court correctly determined that neither an award…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Pestco, Inc. v. Associated Products, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  2. Daddona v. ThorpeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  3. Potteiger v. Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1967
  4. Tombs EstateSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
  5. Menna v. St. Agnes Medical CenterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Gurecka, F. v. Carroll, R.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
  2. Friedman, S. v. Devon ManorSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
  3. Gurecka, F. v. Carroll, R.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
  4. Johnson, R. v. PB Services, Inc., Real EstateSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
  5. Rosano, D. v. Wagner, M.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2019

1 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