Legal Opinion

Ham v. Sulek

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 28, 1993No. 831PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JOHNSON, Judge.

In this appeal from a trial court order sustaining preliminary objections and dismissing the complaint, we are asked to determine whether appellant Karen W. Ham is the real party in interest in this equity action charging that “Taylor Road” is a public road. Finding that she is not the real party in interest and that this action is barred by res judicata, we affirm.

This is the fourth action filed since 1988 concerning a private road known as Taylor Road in Tionesta Township, Forest County. The first two cases resulted in this court’s opinion in Carringer v. Taylor, 402…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Stevenson v. SilvermanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
  2. Mazzagatti v. Everingham by EveringhamSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  3. Kyle v. McNamara & CristeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  4. AM/PM Franchise Ass'n v. Atlantic Richfield Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  5. American Express Co. v. BurgisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Bailey v. StorlazziSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  2. Dempsey v. Cessna Aircraft Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  3. Mistick, Inc. v. Northwestern National Casualty Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  4. Morley v. GorySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  5. Drain v. Covenant Life InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1996

13 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