Legal Opinion

City of Philadelphia v. One Reading Center Associates

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided June 8, 2001No. CIV.A. 00-5149PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM

DuBOIS, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

This case arises out of conflicting agreements regarding the sale of the Aramark Tower, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania landmark. Defendants MSI Associates (“MSI”) and One Reading Center Associates (“One Reading”), are partnerships that were formed for the express purpose of owning and maintaining the Aramark Tower; they own the property and leasehold, respectively. Intervenor defendant Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation (“Alaska”) is a limited and general partner of the MSI and One Reading partnerships (referred to collectively as the…

2Cases cited35 opinions

  1. American Telephone And Telegraph Company v. Winback And Conserve Program, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
  2. Hoxworth v. Blinder, Robinson & Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1990
  3. Brakeman v. Potomac Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  4. April Enterprises, Inc. v. KTTVCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
  5. Maldonado v. HoustounCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1998

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Synthes USA Sales, LLC v. HarrisonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
  2. Gorton v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2018
  3. Lieberman v. Corporacion Experienca Unica, S.A.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2016
  4. Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2005
  5. Dot Bush Goot v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson CountyCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 2005

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

Powered by the Exa API