6 Pennsylvania opinions name it 4 courts 1982–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Firetree, Ltd. v. Department of General Servicesgreen2 sentences2026Whether the trial court erred and/or abused their discretion by failing to properly apply the facts in this matter to the holding in Firetree, Ltd. v. Dept. of General Services, 978 A.2d 1067, 1074 (Pa. Commw. 2009), as the record shows that [Bonnie] had paid compensation for the property, that [Bonnie] took possession of the property, that [her] harm cannot be compensated in damages, and that the rescission here by [Melvin] would be manifestly unfair to [Bonnie]? 2020Servs., 978 A.2d 1067, 1074 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (citing Greenwich Coal & Coke Co. v. Learn, 83 A. 74 (Pa. 1912)). | 2 | 2 |
Briggs v. Sackettgreen2 sentences1987The doctrine is set forth in Briggs v. Sackett, 275 Pa.Super. 13, 16 , 418 A.2d 586, 588 (1980): Where, however, the party seeking to enforce the conveyance has partially performed the contract, so as to render recission inquitable and unjust, the contract may be outside the operation of the statute. 1987The doctrine is set forth in Briggs v. Sackett, 275 Pa.Super. 13, 16 , 418 A.2d 586, 588 (1980): Where, however, the party seeking to enforce the conveyance has partially performed the contract, so as to render recission inquitable and unjust, the contract may be outside the operation of the statute. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kurland v. Stolker
green
1 sentence2026Whether the trial court erred and/or abused their discretion in failing to find the existence of a valid agreement of sale, using the factors under the standard set forth in Kurland v. Stolker, 533 A.2d 1370 (Pa. 1987), with regards to the part performance exception to the requirement that an agreement for the sale of real estate be in writing? -2- J-A28008-25 4. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Hostetter v. Hoover
green
1 sentence2021Trial Court Opinion, 9/30/20, at 10-11 (emphasis added) (citing Hostetter, supra (where the part performance exception is met, “equity will enforce the contract to prevent a greater injustice.”)). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Greenwich Coal & Coke Co. v. Learn
neutral
1 sentence2020Servs., 978 A.2d 1067, 1074 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (citing Greenwich Coal & Coke Co. v. Learn, 83 A. 74 (Pa. 1912)). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Klingensmith v. Klingensmith
green
2 sentences1984Klingensmith v. Klingensmith, 375 Pa. 178 , 100 A.2d 76 (1953). 1984Klingensmith v. Klingensmith, 375 Pa. 178 , 100 A.2d 76 (1953). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
White v. McKnight
neutral
2 sentences1982It is because the part performance doctrine has its basis in equity that the majority of the states do not permit the doctrine of part performance to avoid the bar of the statute of frauds if the action is at law: 59 A.L.R. 1297 ; Am. 1982It is because the part performance doctrine has its basis in equity that the majority of the states do not permit the doctrine of part performance to avoid the bar of the statute of frauds if the action is at law: 59 A.L.R. 1297 ; Am. | 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.