Legal Opinion

Regency Investments, Inc. v. Inlander Ltd.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 15, 2004PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION BY

GANTMAN, J.:

¶ 1 Appellant, Regency Investments, Inc. T/D/A Regency Commercial Maintenance (“Regency”), asks us to determine whether the trial court erred in sustaining the preliminary objection of Appellee, In-lander Limited, a Nevada Corporation (“Inlander”), whereby the court struck Regency’s Mechanics’ Lien claim for failure to serve timely notice of the claim. We hold that the trial court properly struck the Mechanics’ Lien claim, as service of the claim was not achieved until after the one (1) month statutory time period. We also hold the doctrine of substantial compliance does…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Clemleddy Construction, Inc. v. YorstonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  2. Tesauro v. BAIRDSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  3. Samango v. HobbsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1950
  4. O'Kane v. MurraySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
  5. Calhoun v. MahonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1850

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Leven v. FreyNevada Supreme Court · 2007
  2. Philadelphia Construction Services, LLC v. DombSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  3. Bricklayers of Western Pennsylvania Combined Funds, Inc. v. Scott's Development Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
  4. Belfor Property v. Ravenwood ManorSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2023
  5. Americo Construction v. Four TenSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2020

10 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