Hall v. Granite Run Mall

459 A.2d 429, 313 Pa. Super. 98, 1983 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2995
Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided April 29, 1983·No. Appeal No. 3210·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The contentions raised by the appellants on this appeal have been fully discussed and decided in Hall v. The Goodman Company, Et al. and Hall v. Alfred Mestichelli and Granite Run Mall, Et al., 310 Pa.Super. 465, 456 A.2d 1029 (consolidated appeals 1983). For the reasons enunciated in Part II A and B therein, we reverse the trial court’s order insofar as it sustained Sears’ demurrer to Granite’s claim for indemnity and we affirm that part of the trial court’s order dismissing Sears as a party in the action against Goodman and Company and Murray H. Goodman.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hall v. Granite Run Mall, 459 A.2d 429, 313 Pa. Super. 98, 1983 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2995 (Pa. Ct. App. 1983).

459 A.2d 429 (Hall v. Granite Run Mall) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dressler v. Ceco Joist Corp.
43 Pa. D. & C.3d 566 (Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, 1984)