Legal Opinion

Shoemaker v. Lehigh Township

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 22, 1996PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

ZAPPALA, Justice.

This case involves a dispute over funds in an escrow account. We granted allocatur because the Order entered by the Commonwealth Court appeared inconsistent with its opinion. Despite finding that the Appellees and the Buyers of the Appellees’ subdivision lots were both the beneficiaries of a constructive trust, the court remanded for issuance of an order directing the return of the funds solely to Appellees. Because the record before us is inadequate to determine whose money was paid into escrow, we now affirm in part and reverse in part.

In January, 1973, Appellees…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  2. Pierro v. PierroSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
  3. Balazick v. IretonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  4. Carroll Township Board of Supervisors v. Department of Environmental ResourcesCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1994

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Phillips v. Cricket LightersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  2. Purple Orchid, Inc. v. Pennsylvania State PoliceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  3. Upper Southampton Township. v. Upper Southampton Township Zoning Hearing BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  4. D.L. Smith v. Ivy League Real Estate, LLCCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2024
  5. Kopp v. Tubies, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Adams County2008

3 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