Edward J. Seibert, AIA, Architect and Planner, PA v. BAYPORT B. & T. CLUB ASS'N, INC.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the architect fulfilled the common law duty by determining in his professional opinion that only one exit was required
• holding that experts should not be allowed to testify concerning questions of law, and the interpretation of a building code presented a question of law
• holding that expert testimony is admissible to explain the character of an object in order to determine if it complies with a statute, ordinance, or code, but an expert should not be allowed to testify concerning questions of law
• trial court should have accepted city's chief building inspector's interpretation of building code as a permissible interpretation of a \statute\ by the agency charged with implementing it
• trial court should have accepted city’s chief building inspector’s interpretation of building code as a permissible interpretation of a “statute” by the agency charged with implementing it
• “An expert should not be allowed to testify concerning questions of law and the interpretation of the building code presented a question of law. It was the duty of the trial court to interpret the meaning of the code . . . .” (citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).