Legal Opinion
Lurie v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.
New York Court of Appeals
Decided April 14, 1936PublishedCited by 47 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtO’Brien, J.
Plaintiff is an attorney at law and was retained by a client, Harry Tryhubets, who had been injured by an automobile owned by one who had been insured by defendant New Amsterdam Casualty Company. The action is based on allegations that the casualty company through its agents, the defendants Skelly and Sergeant, wrongfully induced and procured the client, Tryhubets, to repudiate his retainer with plaintiff and thereby breach the contract. These allegations are fully supported by evidence.
No action was ever instituted by plaintiff in behalf of his client. He and a member of his office staff…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Hornstein v. PodwitzNew York Court of Appeals · 1930
- Martin v. . CampNew York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Lamb v. S. Cheney & SonNew York Court of Appeals · 1920
- Matter of TillmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1932
- Colrick v. . SwinburneNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by47 opinions
- Guard-Life Corp. v. S. Parker Hardware Manufacturing Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1980
- A. S. Rampell, Inc. v. Hyster Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1957
- ASDI, INC. v. Beard Research, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 2010
- Marks v. StrubleDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2004
- Sharrow v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1986
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.