Legal Opinion

Bachman & Miller v. High Construction Inc.

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster County

Decided December 12, 1991No. 1397 of 1988Published

1Opinion of the Court

GEORGELIS, J.,

Before us are the motions for summary judgment of the additional defendant, Andrews Excavating Inc. One motion has been filed in each case, and both seek the entry of summary judgment in favor of Andrews on the complaints joining it as an additional defendant filed by the defendants, Lantz Builders Inc. and High Construction Inc. Since Lantz Builders Inc. was the predecessor of High Construction Inc., these two defendants shall hereinafter be referred to collectively as High. High and Andrews have filed briefs, and, for the reasons stated below, the motions will be granted.

These…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Perry v. PayneSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
  2. Yaindl v. Ingersoll-Rand Co. Standard Pump-Aldrich DivisionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  3. Szemanski v. Vulcan Materials Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  4. Szymanski-Gallagher v. Chestnut Realty Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  5. Gallagher v. Transport Pool Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1980

2 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