1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. B.R.
  4. 153 B.R.
  5. 153 B.R. 693 (1993)
 

IN RE MARCUS HOOK DEVELOPMENT PARK, INC.

Bankruptcy No. 83-2614-BM, Adv. No. 92-2524-BM, Motion Nos. 92-3070M, 92-3506M and 92-3508M.

153 B.R. 693 (1993)

In re MARCUS HOOK DEVELOPMENT PARK, INC., Debtor. T.A. TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY; and County of Delaware, Pennsylvania, Plaintiff and Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. LAMPL, SABLE & MAKOROFF; Sable, Makoroff & Gusky, P.C.; and Adelman, Lavine, Krasny, Gold & Levin, Defendants. T.A. TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY; and County of Delaware, Pennsylvania, Movants, v. LAMPL, SABLE & MAKOROFF, a partnership organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Sable, Makoroff & Gusky, P.C., a Professional Corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and a successor to Lampl, Sable & Makoroff; Robert G. Sable; Mark L. Glosser; Adelman, Lavine, Krasny, Gold & Levin, a partnership organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and Gary M. Schildhorn, Respondents.

United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Pennsylvania.

April 15, 1993.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Bela A. Karlowitz, Karlowitz & Cromer, Pittsburgh, PA, for plaintiff/T.A. Title Ins. Co.

Joy Flowers Conti, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, Pittsburgh, PA, for plaintiff-intervenor/County of Delaware, PA.

Daniel P. Stefko, Dickie McCamey & Chilcote, P.C., Pittsburgh, PA, for defendants/The Law Firm of Lampl, Sable & Makoroff; Sable, Makoroff & Gusky, P.C.; Robert G. Sable; and Mark L. Glosser.

Robert P. Simons, Klett, Lieber, Rooney & Schorling, Pittsburgh, PA, for defendants/The Law Firm of Adelman, Lavine, Krasny, Gold & Levin; and Gary M. Schildhorn.

David J. Singley, Israel & Wood, P.C., Pittsburgh, PA, for defendants/Gary M. Schildhorn, Esquire and The Law Firm of Adelman, Lavine, Krasny, Gold & Levin.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BERNARD MARKOVITZ, Bankruptcy Judge.

Several matters are before the court at this time.

Defendants at Adversary No. 92-2524BM have moved for dismissal of all or of certain counts of the complaint. Alternatively, they ask this court to abstain from hearing the matter in light of a similar action that is pending in state court. Defendants' motion to dismiss the entire complaint or, in the alternative, for abstention will be...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases