Legal Opinion

Ramondo Et Ux. v. Pure Oil Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 13, 1946No. Appeal, 43PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Reno, J.,

Plaintiffs, husband and wife, alleging that appellant maliciously induced Carmen DiMaio to breach his contract with them, brought an action of assumpsit which later, with leave of court, was changed to trespass. The casé was tried by a judge, without a jury, who found for plaintiffs for the full amount of their claim, and the judgment, upon exceptions, was approved by the court en banc. The case is here upon assignments of error which challenge: (a) The findings of fact, the conclusions of law, and the judgment; and (b) the allowance of the amendment changing the form of…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Klauder v. CregarSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  2. New York & Pennsylvania Co. v. New York Central R. R.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
  3. Caskie v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  4. Dorrington v. ManningSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1938

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Raab v. Keystone InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  2. Heard v. RizzoDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1968
  3. Dijo, Inc. v. Hilton Hotels Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2003
  4. Liston v. Home InsuranceDistrict Court, S.D. Mississippi · 1986
  5. Cockerham v. Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1994

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API