Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 10/31/2002

Blumenstock v. Gibson

Citations

811 A.2d 1029
2002 Pa. Super. 339
2002 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3212

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that all doubts as to the disputed existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved in favor of the non-moving party
holding that the trial court need not strictly enforce Rule 1030 where the rights of the plaintiff are not prejudiced
stating that an appellate court is not limited by a trial court's rationale and may affirm on any basis
enforcing on summary judgment a contract provision releasing seller from claims for “any defects or conditions on the Property.”
explaining aparty cannot justifiably rely o t• upon prior oral representations and then sign acontract containing terms that refute the alleged •a o prior oral representations
defining “fraud in the execution” as a situation where parties agreed certain representations would be added to a written agreement, but those representations were omitted because of fraud, accident, or mistake

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Sole, Hudock, Brosky

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

64 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

18 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.