Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Starling v. Lake Meade Property Owners Ass'n

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 25, 2017No. Starling, W. v. Lake Meade Prop., Aplt. - No. 30 MAP 2016Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION

JUSTICE DOUGHERTY

I join the learned majority with respect to its conclusions regarding the ownership and easement rights as they relate to Custer Drive. However, I respectfully disagree with the majority’s holding summary judgment was properly entered in favor of appellant, Lake Meade Property Owners Association, Inc. (the Association), and against appellees W. Lowell and Nancy Starling (the Starlings) concerning the ownership of the Disputed Property. I further disagree with the majority’s legal conclusion that the Disputed Property is not owned by the…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Fine v. CheccioSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  2. Toy v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  3. Marks v. TasmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  4. Weaver v. Lancaster Newspapers, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  5. Jones v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation AuthoritySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001

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