Loos & Dilworth v. Quaker State Oil Refining Corp.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
HOFFMAN, Judge:
This is an appeal from the lower court’s order granting appellee a new trial. While we agree that a new trial is warranted because of an erroneous jury charge and, accordingly, affirm the court’s order, upon retrial the jury should be charged in accordance with this opinion.
In October, 1980, appellee, Loos & Dilworth, Inc., brought this action in assumpsit against appellant, Quaker State Oil Refining Corporation, seeking damages for appellant’s alleged wrongful termination of a written distributor agreement between them. Appellee alleged that appellant failed to “act in good…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
- Atlantic Richfield Co. v. RazumicSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
- Zapatha v. Dairy Mart, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1980
- Witmer v. Exxon Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
- Johnson v. Mobil Oil Corp.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1976
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Creeger Brick & Building Supply Inc. v. Mid-State Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
- Duquesne Light Co. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1995
- Takes v. Metropolitan Edison Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
- AAMCO Transmissions, Inc. v. HarrisDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1991
- Thomas v. E.B. Jermyn Lodge No. 2Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.