Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Parente, Randolph, Orlando, Carey & Associates
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
CALDWELL, District Judge.
I. Introduction
Third party defendant, Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. (“PMM”) has moved, pursuant to Rule 12(b), to dismiss the third party complaint filed by Párente, Randolph, Orlando, Carey and Associates (“Párente, Randolph”). Párente, Randolph seeks contribution and indemnification from PMM on the basis that in performing accounting services for its client, Northeastern Bank of Pennsylvania (“Northeastern”), PMM breached its duty of professional responsibility. PMM contends, however, (1) that the complaint fails to state a claim for professional…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Gomez v. ToledoSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Ultramares Corp. v. ToucheNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
- Guy v. LiederbachSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
- Robert F. Jennings v. Arthur Shuman, Jr., Robert J. Conway, Gustave Naring, and John DoeCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1977
- Coleco Industries, Inc. v. BermanDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1976
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Pell v. WeinsteinDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1991
- Williams Controls, Inc. v. Parente, Randolph, Orlando, Carey & AssociatesDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1999
- Linde Enterprises, Inc. v. Hazelton City AuthoritySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
- Pennine Resources, Inc. v. Dorwart Andrew & Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1986
- In Re Phar-Mor, Inc. Securities LitigationDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1995
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.