Liddle v. Scholze
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
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
- United States v. PeckSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Ratti v. Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
- Halpin v. LaSalle UniversitySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
- Price v. ConfairSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
- Smith v. Penbridge Associates, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Widmer Engineering, Inc. v. DufallaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Highmark Inc. v. Hospital Service Ass'n of Northeastern PennsylvaniaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
- PARC Holdings, Inc. v. KillianSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
- Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Delaware River Port AuthoritySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
- D & H Distributing Co. v. National Union Fire InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.