Legal Opinion
Aquatrol Corp. v. Altoona City Authority
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided October 8, 2008No. 07-3192UnpublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.
Aquatrol Corporation (Aquatrol) appeals an order of the District Court granting Defendants’ Rule 50 motions on Aquatrol’s breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims. The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and we have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 1 We will affirm.
I
Because we write for the parties, we recount only those facts essential to our decision.
In 1998, the Altoona City Authority (the Authority) contracted with G.M. McCrossin (McCrossin) to manage the computer upgrade of the Horseshoe…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
- McDermott International, Inc. v. WilanderSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- United States v. SpearinSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
- Hoxworth v. Blinder, Robinson & Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1992
- Northview Motors, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Corporation Joseph P. Nigro, TrusteeCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Equitrans Services, LLC v. Precision Pipeline, LLCDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2015
- Lighting Retrofit International, LLC v. Constellation Newenergy, Inc.District Court, D. Maryland · 2022
- McNeal v. Brouse, Jr.United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2024