Legal Opinion

Muhlenberg Township School District Authority v. Pennsylvania Fortunato Construction Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 28, 1975No. 270 and 271PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

POMEROY, Justice.

The basic question for decision in these appeals is whether certain disputes which have arisen under a construction contract between the parties are to be submitted to arbitration, or must be ligitated. The lower court held that the contract required arbitration, and we affirm.

Procedurally the point at issue was raised in the trial court in two ways. The first was by a complaint in equity by the appellant, Muhlenberg Township School District Authority (herein “the Authority”) seek ing to enjoin appellee construction company (herein “the contractor”) from…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Flightways Corp. v. Keystone Helicopter Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  2. Ambridge Borough Water Authority v. ColumbiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  3. Whitemarsh Township Authority v. ElwertSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
  4. Commonwealth v. Erie Metropolitan Transit AuthoritySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Midomo Co. v. Presbyterian Housing Development Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  2. Lincoln University of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education v. Lincoln University Chapter of the American Ass'n of University ProfessorsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
  3. Smay v. E.R. Stuebner, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  4. Highmark Inc. v. Hospital Service Ass'n of Northeastern PennsylvaniaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  5. Saltzman v. Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2017

15 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