Legal Opinion

Cooper v. Heintz Manufacturing Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 21, 1956No. Appeal, 113PublishedCited by 43 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Musmanno,

This case has to do with the mysterious element of electricity which, although invisible to the eye, wields a force capable of illuminating the world, propelling machines of fabulous complexity, transporting incalculable weights, and destroying or crippling life. The defendant Heintz Manufacturing Company employed electricity as motive poAver in its large plant in Philadelphia, maintaining and operating in this connection six transformers which were installed in a structure attached to the south side of one of its buildings here called Building No. 42. In order…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Fitzgerald v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
  2. MacDougall v. Penna. Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
  3. Valles v. Peoples-Pittsburgh Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
  4. Engle v. ReiderSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
  5. Grace v. Henry Disston & Sons, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1952

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

3Cited by43 opinions

  1. Hader v. Coplay Cement Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  2. Draper v. Airco, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1978
  3. Skoda v. West Penn Power Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  4. Lebeck v. William A. Jarvis, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1957
  5. Crane v. I.T.E. Circuit Breaker Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971

38 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