Legal Opinion

Smith v. Penbridge Associates, Inc.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 14, 1995PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

POPOVICH, Judge.

An emu is not uncommon in Australia or as a clue in an American crossword puzzle. But, unless our research was not extensive enough, we can state that emus have never before in Pennsylvania been the subject of litigation, litigation that has herein produced a small trove of contract law principles.

This is an appeal from the order of May 31, 1994, entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Clarion County denying appellant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for new trial. 1 Herein, we are asked to determine whether appellant should be held…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1931
  2. Kuisis v. Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  3. Pugh v. HolmesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  4. Ingrassia Const. Co., Inc. v. WalshSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  5. Ruzzi v. Butler Petroleum Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991

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

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Jones v. JonesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  2. Korn v. EpsteinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  3. Liddle v. ScholzeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  4. Bunt v. Pension Mortgage Associates, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  5. Gallagher v. SheridanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1995

19 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