Case ID: pa_469/html/0488-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: ROBERTS, Justice", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

366 A.2d 894
    Robert B. ANDERSON v. BERNHARD REALTY SALES COMPANY, INC., et al. Appeal of REVEST, INC., and Ronald Heurich. Gilroy REID v. SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Appellant.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Argued Sept. 23, 1976.
    Decided Nov. 24, 1976.
    Rehearing Denied Dec. 31, 1976.
    Ralph A. Davies, Thomson, Rhodes & Grigsby, James F. Manley, Burns, Manley & Little, Pittsburgh, for appellant in No. 108.
    Lewis H. Van Dusen, Jr., Chief Counsel, Joseph F. Keener, Jr., General Claims Atty., Emil F. Toften, Deputy General Claims Atty., Frederick T. Lachat, Jr., Philadelphia, for appellant in No. 317.
    
      Mathew Verlich, Stokes, Lurie & Tracy, Pittsburgh, for appellee in No. 108.
    George P. Stahl, Jr., Philadelphia, for appellee in No. 317.
    Robert R. Artz, Philadelphia, Richard Klaber, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcotte, Pittsburgh, Francis H. Patrano, Patrano, Ceisler, Edwards & Pettit, California, for Pa. Defense Institute.
    Norman M. Berger, Philadelphia, Craig W. Bremer, Harrisburg, for amicus curiae.
    Before JONES, C. J., and EAGEN, O’BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX and MANDERINO, JJ.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Our disposition of these consolidated appeals is controlled by our decision in Lamp v. Heyman, 469 Pa.-, 366 A.2d 882 (1976).

In No. 108 March Term, 1975, the order of the Superi- or Court is affirmed.

In No. 317 January Term, 1975, the order of the Superior Court is affirmed.

ROBERTS, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which POMEROY and NIX, JJ., join.

ROBERTS, Justice

(dissenting).

I dissent for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinions in Lamp v. Heyman, 469 Pa.-,-, 366 A.2d 882, 889, 892 (1976) (ROBERTS, J., joined by POMEROY and NIX, JJ.; and POMEROY, J., joined by ROBERTS and NIX, JJ.).

POMEROY and NIX, JJ., join in this dissenting opinion.