Chestnut v. Pediatric Homecare of America, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that because parties could not have explicitly agreed to particular performance at issue under section 187(1), section 187(2)(b) applied
• applying Pennsylvania law to an issue according to Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Law § 187(2)(b), while recognizing that parties did not have the power to contract as to the issue
• applying Pennsylvania law to an issue according to Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Law § 187(2)(b), while recognizing that parties did not have the power to contract as to the issue
• noting, “Under section 187(1), the parties could not have explicitly agreed to make appellant tender payment for redemption of shares if its capital was impaired at the time.”
• applying the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws to give effect to the parties’ choice of law provision in a contract

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).