Legal Opinion

Kessler v. Broder

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 1, 2004PublishedCited by 34 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTamilia, J.

¶ 1 Appellants appeal the May 18, 2008 Order entering a mandatory, preliminary injunction requiring them to provide appel-lees with one out of every three readings of certain magnetic resonance images (MRI’s).

¶ 2 At issue is a dispute among radiologists who co-own MRI centers. Appellants (the Broder Group) 1 are the majority shareholders of the four defendant corporations. 2 Appellees (the Kessler Group) 3 are the minority shareholders. The Kes-sler Group initiated this action in which they allege, inter alia, an oral agreement pursuant to which the Broder Group promised to allocate MRI reads…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Summit Towne Centre, Inc. v. Shoe Show of Rocky Mount, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  2. New Castle Orthopedic Associates v. BurnsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  3. Mazzie v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  4. Valley Forge Historical Society v. Washington Memorial ChapelSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  5. Viener v. JacobsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2003

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

3Cited by34 opinions

  1. Ambrogi v. ReberSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  2. Weissberger v. MyersSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  3. York Group, Inc. v. Yorktowne Caskets, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  4. Greenmoor, Inc. v. BURCHICK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  5. Warfield v. ShermerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2006

29 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