Legal Opinion

Hoffman v. Rittenhouse

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 17, 1964No. Appeal, 242PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice O’Brien,

Plaintiff-appellant, Sol Hoffman, trading and doing business as Tri-State Music Company, appeals from a final decree in equity, dismissing his complaint, which sought to enforce a restrictive covenant against appellees, Harold Eittenhouse and his present employer, Independent Music Company. Harold Eittenhouse had been employed by Albert Eosman, doing business as Penn State Music Company, for many years, as manager of the business engaged in distributing cOin-operated music machines and coin-operated amusement devices. Appellant acquired the Penn State Music…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Morgan's Home Equipment Corp. v. MartucciSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
  2. Rubin v. Lustro Tile Products Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Van Products Co. v. General Welding & Fabricating Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
  2. Felmlee v. LockettSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
  3. Teodori v. WernerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  4. Cranes-Mayos Clothes, Inc. v. Street Road Shopping Center, Inc., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Bucks County1970
  5. Grant Drugs Inc. v. Williams, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1989

4 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