Legal Opinion

Highmont Music Corp. v. J. M. Hoffmann Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 9, 1959No. Appeal, 126PublishedCited by 46 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice McBride,

The only question is whether the court below should have granted the defendant’s motion for judgment non obstante veredicto. The case was fairly tried in the court below and ably argued here.

Plaintiff, a corporation (hereinafter called Highmont), wanted to operate a retail phonograph record store in Pittsburgh. In order to rent a suitable storeroom in downtown Pittsburgh, it contacted a real estate broker who assigned its agent to negotiate a lease. The agent immediately supplied a list of available downtown storerooms. One of the properties suggested was 639…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Neuman v. Corn Exchange National Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1946
  2. LaCourse v. KieselSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  3. Gerfin v. Colonial Smelting & Refining Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
  4. Berger v. Pittsburgh Auto Equipment Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
  5. Emery v. Third Nat. Bank of Pbg.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932

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

3Cited by46 opinions

  1. Delahanty v. First Pennsylvania Bank, N.A.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  2. Bortz v. NoonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  3. In Re: Robert B. SurrickCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2003
  4. LeDonne v. KesslerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  5. Betz Laboratories, Inc. v. HinesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1981

41 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