Legal Opinion

Urban Redevelopment Authority v. Noralco Corp.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 3, 1980No. 857PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HOFFMAN, Judge:

Appellant contends that the lower court erred in concluding that the parties’ contract required appellant to indemnify appellee for a loss resulting from appellee’s negligence. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the entry of judgment n. o. v. in favor of appellee.

Appellee, Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh (URA), owns a tract of land in the East Liberty section of Pittsburgh. Appellant, Noralco Corporation (Noralco), is engaged in demolition work. In 1965, the URA and Noralco entered into a contract whereby Noralco agreed to perform demolition and site clearance…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Perry v. PayneSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
  2. Dilks v. Flohr ChevroletSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  3. Pittsburgh Steel Co. v. Patterson-Emerson-Comstock, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1961
  4. Westinghouse Electric Co. v. Murphy, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1967
  5. Zimmer v. Mitchell and NessSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1978

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

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Clement v. Consolidated Rail Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1992
  2. East Texas Motor Freight, Diamond Division v. LloydSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  3. City of Wilkes-Barre v. KAMINSKI BROTHERSCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  4. Deskiewicz v. Zenith Radio Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  5. DiPietro v. City of PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985

18 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