Legal Opinion

Carll v. Terminix International Co., LP

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 21, 2002PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDel Sole, P.J.

¶ 1 This is an appeal from a trial court order which denied Appellant’s Petition to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Judicial Proceedings. 1 We affirm.

¶ 2 This action was instituted by Appel-lees, Mr. and Mrs. Carll and their four children, claiming that they sustained numerous severe and permanent injuries as a result of Appellants’ negligent application of pesticides in and around their home. Appellee also sought damages for the costs of relocating as well as punitive damages. In response Appellants tiled a Petition to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Judicial Proceedings in which they asserted…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Mamlin v. GenoeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
  2. New York State Electric & Gas Corp. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  3. Lobianco v. Property Protection, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  4. Jeffrey v. Erie Insurance ExchangeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
  5. Messa v. State Farm InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1994

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Lytle v. CitiFinancial Services, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  2. Fellerman, S. v. PECO Energy Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
  3. Peltz Ex Rel. Estate of Peltz v. SEARS, ROEBUCKDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2005
  4. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. AbnerCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 2008
  5. Narayan v. The Ritz-Carlton Development Company, Inc.Hawaii Supreme Court · 2015

7 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