Miller v. Ginsberg
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the CourtOlszewski, J.
¶ 1 Phillip Ginsberg, D.O. and Suburban Urological Associates (appellees with regard to the order of June 24, 2004, and appellants with regard to the judgment of June 25, 2004), hereinafter “defendants,” and Kimberly and Roy Miller (appellants with regard to the order of June 24, 2004, and appellees with regard to the judgment of June 25, 2004), hereinafter “plaintiffs,” challenge the lower court rulings in this matter. Plaintiffs claim that the judgment in their favor was proper but that the order enforcing the high/low agreement was erroneous. Defendants challenge the denial of their…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Pocono International Raceway, Inc. v. Pocono Produce, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
- Cochran v. GAF Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
- Dalrymple v. BrownSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
- Ettinger v. Triangle-Pacific Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
- E.J.M. v. Archdiocese of PhiladelphiaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Blunt v. Lower Merion School DistrictCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2014
- Step Plan Services, Inc. v. KoreskoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
- Thompson v. T.J. Whipple Construction Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
- Alwine v. Sugar Creek Rest, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
- Urmann v. Rockwood Casualty InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.