Skip to main content

Sabella, D. v. Appalachian Development Corp.

Citations

  • 103 A.3d 83

How courts have described this case

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

  • recognizing that the characterization of the legal interest conveyed in a mineral estate has historically been described in a multitude of ways, some of which are contradictory
  • stating, “a defendant asserting an affirmative - 19 - J. A30037/17 defense has the burden of proof as to that affirmative defense.”
  • subsequent purchasers were not good-faith purchasers of oil, gas and mineral rights due to prior tax sale purchaser's recording of acquisition of those rights
  • “The absence of an indispensable party renders any order or decree of the court null and void.” (cleaned up)
  • under Pennsylvania law, the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense on which the defendant bears the burden of proof
  • subsequent purchasers were not good-faith purchasers of oil, gas and mineral rights due to prior tax sale purchaser’s recording of acquisition of those rights

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Bowes, Wecht, Stabile

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

18 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

50 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Sabella, D. v. Appalachian Development Corp.

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

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.