Fizzano Bros. Concrete Products, Inc. v. XLN, Inc.
994 A.2d 1081, 606 Pa. 48, 2010 Pa. LEXIS 1098
Opinion
ORDER
AND NOW, this 19th day of MAY, 2010, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED limited to the following issues:
1. Does the defacto merger doctrine always require proof of continuity of ownership?
2. Did the Superior Court improperly substitute its own fact-finding for that of the trial court?
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Fizzano Bros. Concrete Products, Inc. v. XLN, Inc., 994 A.2d 1081, 606 Pa. 48, 2010 Pa. LEXIS 1098 (Pa. 2010).
994 A.2d 1081 (Fizzano Bros. Concrete Products, Inc. v. XLN, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Fizzano Brothers Concrete Products, Inc. v. XLN, Inc.
42 A.3d 951 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2012)
Prowell v. Eastwood Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.
20 Pa. D. & C.5th 67 (Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas, 2010)
Johnson v. CORRECTIONAL PHYSICLAN SERVICES
725 F. Supp. 2d 481 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 2010)