Legal Opinion

Santoro v. Morse

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 1, 2001PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

McEWEN, President Judge Emeritus.

¶ 1 This appeal 1 has been taken by Paul Morse (hereinafter “appellant”), Cable Technologies International, Inc. (hereinafter “CTI”), and Cable Technologies of New York, Inc. (hereinafter “CTINY”), from a preliminary injunction entered on February 7, 2001 2 That injunction provided:

ORDER

AND NOW, this 7th day of February, 2000, after hearings on , 12/29/98; 12/30/98; 2/10/99; 2/11/99;, 3/23/99; 3/25/99; and conference on December 23, 1999, on Plaintiffs Request for Preliminary Injunction, and after review of the record as well as the parties briefs, findings of…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Maritrans GP Inc. v. Pepper, Hamilton & ScheetzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  2. John G. Bryant Co. v. Sling Testing & Repair, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  3. Village at Camelback Property Owners Assn. Inc. v. CarrSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  4. Soja v. Factoryville Sportsmen's ClubSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  5. Yohe v. YoheSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976

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

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. York Group, Inc. v. Yorktowne Caskets, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  2. Kessler v. BroderSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  3. Brayman Construction Corp. v. Commonwealth, Department of TransportationSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
  4. Walter v. StacySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  5. Porter v. Chevron Appalachia, LLCSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2019

18 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