Branham v. ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY
995 A.2d 873, 606 Pa. 114, 2010 Pa. LEXIS 957
Opinion
ORDER
AND NOW, this 4th day of May, 2010, “Petition for Allowance of Appeal and Application for Relief,” treated as a Petition for Relief per Pa.R.A.P. 123, is DENIED, and the Application to Expedite, the Motion to Supplement the Record, and the “Motion for Leave to File Reply in Support of Motion to Supplement the Record” are DISMISSED AS MOOT.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Branham v. ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY, 995 A.2d 873, 606 Pa. 114, 2010 Pa. LEXIS 957 (Pa. 2010).
995 A.2d 873 (Branham v. ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
County of Dauphin v. City of Harrisburg
24 A.3d 1083 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2011)