Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Waller Corp. v. Warren Plaza, Inc.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 30, 2014PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY

BENDER, P.J.E.

Respectfully, I dissent. I agree with the learned Majority that Appellant, Warren Plaza, Inc. is hable to Waller Corporation (Waller) for compensatory damages and interest based upon its breach of contract. However, in my view, the Majority errs in affirming the trial court’s award of attorney fees.

*320First, the Majority disregards the binding precedential value of Zimmerman v. Harrisburg Fudd I, L.P., 984 A.2d 497 (Pa.Super.2009), opting instead to reinterpret the merely persuasive, federal authority upon which the Zimmerman panel based its…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. HullSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  2. Zimmerman v. Harrisburg Fudd I, L.P.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
  3. BRIDGES PBT v. ChattaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  4. Piston v. HughesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2013

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. E. Allen Reeves v. Old York, LLCSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2023

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

Powered by the Exa API