Schoenenberger v. Hayman
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Judge Babbiebi,
The present action involves the appeal of the additional defendant, Mifflin Township, and the cross-appeal of the plaintiffs, Saul and Alice Schoenenberger from a decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Columbia County which dismissed the exceptions filed by the parties to that court’s finding of a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs on their action for the breach of an implied warranty of habitability and fitness in the construction of their home. The defendants, Hay-man Brothers. Custom Builders, are not participating in the present appeal.
The factual background of…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Ayala v. Philadelphia Board of Public EducationSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
- Gilbert v. Korvette's Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
- ELDERKIN Et Ux. v. GasterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
- Ragan v. SteenSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
- Exton Drive-In, Inc. v. Home Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1969
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- McDonald v. Aliquippa HospitalSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
- Bendas v. Upper Saucon TownshipCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
- Wujcik v. Yorktowne Dental Associates, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
- Eisele v. Holloway (In re Eisele)District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1991
- State v. Richard S.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2013
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.