Legal Opinion

Haan, D. and P. v. Wells, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 8, 2014No. 1895 MDA 2013PublishedCited by 72 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION BY

WECHT, J.:

D. Scot Haan and Patrice Amity Haan (“the Haans”) appeal the trial court’s October 11, 2013 order. In that order, the trial court denied the Haans’ motion for post-trial relief and entered final judgments on the matter. We affirm.

In a memorandum opinion issued in support of the denial of the Haans’ post-trial motions, the trial court set forth the factual and procedural history of this case as follows:

[Appellants], D. [Scot] Haan and Patrice Amity Haan (“the Haans”), and [Appel-lees], John A. Wells, Jr., and his wife, Susan A. Wells (“the Wells”), are the owners of…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. ClaySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
  2. Commonwealth v. CousarSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  3. Samuel-Bassett v. Kia Motors America, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
  4. PETOW v. WarehimeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
  5. Criswell v. KingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003

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

3Cited by72 opinions

  1. Brown v. TrinidadSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
  2. Mader, S. v. Duquesne LightSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2018
  3. Affordable Outdoor, LLC v. Tri-Outdoor, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2019
  4. McFeeley, L. v. Shah, S.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2020
  5. C. Worley and L. Worley, h/w v. County of Delaware and M. GuraCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2017

67 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