Legal Opinion

Lachat v. Hinchliffe

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 20, 2001PublishedCited by 73 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HUDOCK, J.:

¶ 1 This is an appeal from an order which found, inter alia, Appellant, Frank A. Hinchliffe (Hinchliffe), to be in contempt and directed him to pay counsel fees on behalf of Appellees, Robert and Mary Lachat (the Lachats), and one-half the costs of a land survey. We reverse.

¶ 2 The dispute underlying the present appeal is of a long-standing nature. The certified record shows that in October of 1986, the Lachats commenced an action sounding in equity by filing a civil complaint requesting the trial court to direct Hinchliffe to cease all activities that interfered with their use of…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Miller v. Sacred Heart HospitalSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  2. Knaus v. KnausSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
  3. Thunberg v. StrauseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
  4. Barrett v. BarrettSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  5. Kramer v. KellySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979

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

3Cited by73 opinions

  1. Gutteridge v. A.P. Green Services, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  2. Stephan v. Waldron Electric Heating & Cooling LLCSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  3. Rauch v. Mike-MayerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  4. Rivera v. Pennsylvania Department of CorrectionsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  5. Commonwealth v. AshtonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2003

68 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