Legal Opinion

Liddle v. Scholze

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 2, 2001PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEakin, J.

¶ 1 The emu’s a bird quite large and stately, whose market potential was valued so greatly that a decade ago, it was thought to be the boom crop of the 21st century.

¶ 2 Our appellant decided she ought to invest in two breeding emus, but their conjugal nest produced no chicks, so she tried to regain her purchase money, but alas in vain.

¶ 3 Appellant then filed a contract suit, but the verdict gave her claim the boot; thus she was left with no resort but this appeal to the Superior Court.

¶ 4 Delores Liddle paid $48,000 to Denise Scholze for a male emu, which she named Nicholas, and a female she…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. United States v. PeckSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
  2. Ratti v. Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  3. Halpin v. LaSalle UniversitySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  4. Price v. ConfairSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  5. Smith v. Penbridge Associates, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1995

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Widmer Engineering, Inc. v. DufallaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  2. Highmark Inc. v. Hospital Service Ass'n of Northeastern PennsylvaniaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  3. PARC Holdings, Inc. v. KillianSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  4. Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Delaware River Port AuthoritySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  5. D & H Distributing Co. v. National Union Fire InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2003

17 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