Legal Opinion

Meinhart v. Heaster

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 7, 1993No. 560PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HUDOCK, Judge:

This is an appeal from the order of the trial court which, inter alia, granted Appellees’ preliminary objections and dis*435missed Appellants’ claim for breach of a lease-purchase agreement. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

The facts and procedural history may be summarized as follows: On March 22, 1988, the parties entered into a written lease and option to purchase certain realty which Appellees jointly owned. On October 22, 1990, Appellants filed a complaint in which they alleged that Appellees’ failure to deliver “clear and marketable title” caused Appellees to breach the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Praisner v. StockerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  2. Motheral v. BurkhartSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  3. Ambrose v. Cross Creek CondominiumsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  4. Penox Technologies, Inc. v. Foster Medical Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  5. Holmes v. LadoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Britt v. Chestnut Hill CollegeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
  2. Fabral, Inc. v. B & B Roofing Co., Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2011
  3. Hillgartner v. Port Authority, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County2006
  4. Vause v. Middletown Township, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Bucks County1996

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

Powered by the Exa API