Legal Opinion

Seligman & Latz of Pittsburgh, Inc. v. Vernillo

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 24, 1955No. Appeals, Nos. 87 and 100PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Bell,

Defendants appeal from a preliminary injunction enjoining them from operating a beauty salon in competition with their former employer, and from soliciting the customers of their former employer in violation of the restrictive covenants of the employment contract they had (respectively) made with plaintiff.

These two appeals were heard and argued as one, since the facts in each case are substantially the same. Lenore Cesarone Lloyd was employed for many years by Seligman & Latz, which was originally a partnership but subsequently incorporated. On November 18, 1949…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Plunkett Chemical Co. v. ReeveSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
  2. Harris Calorific Co. v. MarraSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
  3. Monongahela River Consolidated Coal & Coke Co. v. JutteSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
  4. Borough of Sunbury v. Sunbury & Susquehanna Railway Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
  5. Harbison-Walker Refractories Co. v. StantonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909

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

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. Morgan's Home Equipment Corp. v. MartucciSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
  2. John G. Bryant Co. v. Sling Testing & Repair, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  3. Sidco Paper Company v. AaronSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
  4. All-Pak, Inc. v. JohnstonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  5. Hayes v. AltmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1967

27 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