Legal Opinion

Ritter v. Harrisburg School District

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 30, 1927No. Appeal, 21PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Me. Justice Schaepee,

A recital of the facts in this case disclosed by the record, will demonstrate that, as determined in the court below, plaintiff should not recover. In having his case submitted to a jury he got more consideration than he was entitled to receive; the trial judge should have decided the case as a matter of law.

Plaintiff, an architect, sued the School District of Harrisburg for $26,300, representing commissions on a school building which was never built and for which he did not even prepare definite and finished plans. The total commissions claimed amount to…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. City of CorrySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
  2. Williar v. NagleCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1908
  3. Harlow v. Borough of Beaver FallsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
  4. Osterling v. Allegheny CountySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  5. Willis v. York County Directors of PoorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Charleroi Lumber Co. v. Bentleyville Borough School DistrictSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  2. Altman v. Uniontown School DistrictSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  3. Levy v. Leaseway System, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
  4. Clas v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1928

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API