Legal Opinion

Shovel Transfer & Storage, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 27, 1999PublishedCited by 114 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

CAPPY, Justice.

The primary issue presented in the instant case is whether the signatures of the Secretary of the Budget and the Comptroller of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (hereafter “PLCB”) were required for the formation of a valid and enforceable contract between Shovel Transfer and Storage (hereafter “Shovel”), appellant herein, and the PLCB. If a valid contract was formed, then we must address the secondary issue of whether conditions existed which excused the PLCB’s performance under the contract. For the reasons stated herein, we hold that a valid contract was formed…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Steuart v. McChesneySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  2. Field v. Golden Triangle Broadcasting, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
  3. Walters v. DitzlerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1967
  4. Lower Frederick Township v. ClemmerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  5. Trosky v. Civil Service CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995

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

3Cited by114 opinions

  1. American Eagle Outfitters v. Lyle & Scott Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2009
  2. Century Indemnity Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, LondonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2009
  3. Insurance Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. Allstate InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  4. Lesko v. Frankford Hospital-Bucks CountySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
  5. Pacific Employers Ins Co v. Global Reinsurance Corp of AmeCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2012

109 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