Legal Opinion
Emmaus Municipal Authority v. Eltz
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided December 3, 1964No. Appeal, 13PublishedCited by 61 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice O’Brien,
The plaintiff-appellee filed a complaint in assumpsit in. which it alleged that the defendant had breached the terms of two contracts. The defendants then filed, on the plaintiff, a rule to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed. The petition for the rule alleged that the contracts signed by the parties provided for arbitration; hence the action in assumpsit was premature and not in keeping with the Arbitration Act of 1927. The court below, after a hearing, discharged the rule and this appeal followed.
The key question to be determined by this appeal…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Capecci v. Joseph Capecci, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1958
- Scholler Bros. v. Otto A. C. Hagen Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
- McDevitt v. McDevittSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1950
- Jacob v. WeisserSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- Capecci v. Capecci, Inc., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1957
3Cited by61 opinions
- Kirleis v. Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2009
- PAINEWEBBER INCORPORATED v. Willard S. HARTMANN, Leona R. Hartmann, AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1990
- Gavlik Construction Co. v. H. F. Campbell Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1975
- Flightways Corp. v. Keystone Helicopter Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
- Ross Brothers Construction Co., Inc. v. International Steel Services, Inc. And American Iron Oxide CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2002
56 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.