Legal Opinion

Pearlman v. Pittsburgh

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 20, 1931No. Appeal, 84PublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Walling,

The defendant City of Pittsburgh supplies approximately one hundred and twenty-five thousand customers with city water and is gradually changing from a flat rate to a meter system. In the furtherance of this plan the city, in the spring of 1930, enacted an ordinance making, inter alia, an appropriation, directing the proper authorities to advertise for sealed proposals “For the furnishing of 3,000, more or less, Water Me ters and Water Meter Parts, for the Burean of Water.” The information to prospective bidders included a proposed contract and specifications.…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Hibbs v. ArensbergSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
  2. Mazet v. City of PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
  3. Page v. KingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
  4. Kratz v. AllentownSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  5. Louchheim v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907

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

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. Conduit & Foundation Corp. v. City of PhiladelphiaCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  2. Kratz v. AllentownSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  3. McIntosh Road Materials Co. v. WoolworthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1950
  4. Highway Express Lines, Inc. v. WinterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
  5. Xpress Truck Lines, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983

26 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