Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Pennsylvania opinions name it 5 courts 1982–1995 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Manor Junior College v. Kaller's Inc.green2 sentences1992Young v. Eastern Eng. & Elevator, 381 Pa.Super. 428, 437-438 , 554 A.2d 77, 81 , appeal den. 524 Pa. 608 , 569 A.2d 1367 (1989) and 524 Pa. 611 , 569 A.2d 1369 (1989) (Guy is a narrow exception to the Spires requirement that third-party beneficiary affirmatively appear in contract); Manor Junior College v. Kaller’s Inc., 352 Pa.Super. 310, 313-314 , 507 A.2d 1245, 1247 (1986) (Guy applies to a “narrow class” of cases). 1992Young v. Eastern Eng. & Elevator, 381 Pa.Super. 428, 437-438 , 554 A.2d 77, 81 , appeal den. 524 Pa. 608 , 569 A.2d 1367 (1989) and 524 Pa. 611 , 569 A.2d 1369 (1989) (Guy is a narrow exception to the Spires requirement that third-party beneficiary affirmatively appear in contract); Manor Junior College v. Kaller’s Inc., 352 Pa.Super. 310, 313-314 , 507 A.2d 1245, 1247 (1986) (Guy applies to a “narrow class” of cases). | 2 | 2 |
Guy v. Liederbachgreen2 sentences1994But in Guy v. Liederbach, 501 Pa. 47 , 459 A.2d 744 (1983), the Supreme Court carved out an exception to the Spires rule by adopting Section 302 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts: (1) Unless otherwise agreed between promisor and promisee, a beneficiary of a promise is an intended beneficiary if recognition of a right to performance in the beneficiary is appropriate to effectuate the intentions of the parties and either (a) the performance of the promise will satisfy an obligation of the promisee to pay money to the beneficiary; or (b) the circumstances indicate that the promisee intends 1994But in Guy v. Liederbach, 501 Pa. 47 , 459 A.2d 744 (1983), the Supreme Court carved out an exception to the Spires rule by adopting Section 302 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts: (1) Unless otherwise agreed between promisor and promisee, a beneficiary of a promise is an intended beneficiary if recognition of a right to performance in the beneficiary is appropriate to effectuate the intentions of the parties and either (a) the performance of the promise will satisfy an obligation of the promisee to pay money to the beneficiary; or (b) the circumstances indicate that the promisee intends | 1 | 4 |
Fitzgerald v. Kwaterski Et Ux.green2 sentences1985See Fitzgerald v. Kwaterski, 318 Pa. 494 , 178 A. 385 (1935). 1985See Fitzgerald v. Kwaterski, 318 Pa. 494 , 178 A. 385 (1935). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
SPIRES Et Ux. v. Hanover Fire Ins. Co.
red
2 sentences1994Co., 364 Pa. 52 , 70 A.2d 828 (1950) ] and took pains to make clear that the application of the Restatement was restricted to a quite “narrow class” and is to be seen as a supplement to the Spires standard. 1994Co., 364 Pa. 52 , 70 A.2d 828 (1950) ] and took pains to make clear that the application of the Restatement was restricted to a quite “narrow class” and is to be seen as a supplement to the Spires standard. | 2 | 1983–1994 |
Scarpitti v. Weborg
green
2 sentences1995Guy, supra.” Scarpitti at 372-73, 609 A.2d at 150-51 . (emphasis in original) From the language in Scarpitti , it is clear that the Restatement (Second) of Contracts §302 analysis is an exception to the Spires test. 1995Guy, supra.” Scarpitti at 372-73, 609 A.2d at 150-51 . (emphasis in original) From the language in Scarpitti , it is clear that the Restatement (Second) of Contracts §302 analysis is an exception to the Spires test. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Young v. Eastern Engineering & Elevator Co.
green
2 sentences1992Young v. Eastern Eng. & Elevator, 381 Pa.Super. 428, 437-438 , 554 A.2d 77, 81 , appeal den. 524 Pa. 608 , 569 A.2d 1367 (1989) and 524 Pa. 611 , 569 A.2d 1369 (1989) (Guy is a narrow exception to the Spires requirement that third-party beneficiary affirmatively appear in contract); Manor Junior College v. Kaller’s Inc., 352 Pa.Super. 310, 313-314 , 507 A.2d 1245, 1247 (1986) (Guy applies to a “narrow class” of cases). 1992Young v. Eastern Eng. & Elevator, 381 Pa.Super. 428, 437-438 , 554 A.2d 77, 81 , appeal den. 524 Pa. 608 , 569 A.2d 1367 (1989) and 524 Pa. 611 , 569 A.2d 1369 (1989) (Guy is a narrow exception to the Spires requirement that third-party beneficiary affirmatively appear in contract); Manor Junior College v. Kaller’s Inc., 352 Pa.Super. 310, 313-314 , 507 A.2d 1245, 1247 (1986) (Guy applies to a “narrow class” of cases). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Hillbrook Apartments, Inc. v. Nyce Crete Co.
green
2 sentences1982Hillbrook Apartments, Inc. v. Nyce Crete Company, 237 Pa.Super. 565, 582 , 352 A.2d . 148, 156 (1975). —but the majority of this court was not inclined to discard the Spires rule and noted: As sympathetic as we may be to the defense’s position, we are not free, as an intermediate appellate court, to overrule the decisional law enunciated by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. 1982Hillbrook Apartments, Inc. v. Nyce Crete Company, 237 Pa.Super. 565, 582 , 352 A.2d . 148, 156 (1975). —but the majority of this court was not inclined to discard the Spires rule and noted: As sympathetic as we may be to the defense’s position, we are not free, as an intermediate appellate court, to overrule the decisional law enunciated by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.