Legal Opinion

Schoenenberger v. Hayman

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 7, 1983No. Appeals, Nos. 55 T.D. 1981, 23 T.D. 1982 and 2375 C.D. 1982PublishedCited by 8 opinions

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

  1. Ayala v. Philadelphia Board of Public EducationSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
  2. Gilbert v. Korvette's Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  3. ELDERKIN Et Ux. v. GasterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
  4. Ragan v. SteenSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  5. 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

  1. McDonald v. Aliquippa HospitalSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  2. Bendas v. Upper Saucon TownshipCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  3. Wujcik v. Yorktowne Dental Associates, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  4. Eisele v. Holloway (In re Eisele)District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1991
  5. State v. Richard S.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2013

3 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