RITTENHOUSE PLAZA, INC. v. Lichtman
959 A.2d 909, 598 Pa. 610, 2008 Pa. LEXIS 1984
Opinion
ORDER
AND NOW, this 5th day of November, 2008, the Petition for Leave to File Petition for Allowance of Appeal, treated as a Petition for Review, and the “Emergency Motion to Amend Supersedeas,” which is treated as a Motion for Stay, are DENIED. Respondents’ Motion to Consolidate is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
RITTENHOUSE PLAZA, INC. v. Lichtman, 959 A.2d 909, 598 Pa. 610, 2008 Pa. LEXIS 1984 (Pa. 2008).
959 A.2d 909 (RITTENHOUSE PLAZA, INC. v. Lichtman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Commonwealth v. Walker
959 A.2d 909 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2008)