Legal Opinion

Coopersmith v. Rose

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Northampton County

Decided June 11, 1951No. 75Published

1Opinion of the Court

Woodring, J.,

We are herein concerned with two motions made in an arbitration proceeding subsequent to the award. The award was in favor of plaintiff. Defendant filed his motion for a rule to show cause why the award should not be modified or corrected. Thereafter, plaintiff applied to the court for an order confirming the award. We will consider both motions in this opinion.

A brief summary of the facts, as contained in the transcript of testimony, which is in excess of 400 pages, and in a large number of exhibits, is as follows:

Defendant acquired a building lot in the City of Easton and…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Gianni v. Russell Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
  2. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission v. SmithSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
  3. Grubb v. RockeySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  4. West Republic Mining Co. v. Jones & LaughlinsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1885
  5. Goldstein v. Int. L. G. W. U.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937

9 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