Legal Opinion

Hancotte v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided March 15, 1982No. Civ. A. No. 81-3951PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM

BECHTLE, District Judge.

Presently before the Court is defendant’s motion for joinder of a partially subrogated insurance carrier on the grounds that the carrier is the real party in interest, is a necessary party whose joinder is feasible, and is a party whose joinder is appropriate *846in the interests of justice. For the reasons set forth herein, the motion will be denied.

This is an action wherein plaintiffs Daniel and Carolyn Hancotte seek to recover $271,-843.55 in damages incurred as a result of a fire allegedly caused by a defective water softener purchased from the defendant,…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. United States v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
  2. White Hall Building Corp. v. Profexray Division of Litton Industries, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1974
  3. Pace v. General Electric Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1972
  4. Stouffer Corp. v. Dow Chemical Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1980
  5. Ledford v. Central Medical Pavilion, Inc.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1981

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Municipality of Anchorage v. Baugh Construction & Engineering Co.Alaska Supreme Court · 1986
  2. Allied Fire & Safety Equipment Co. v. Dick Enterprises, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1997
  3. Prosperity Realty, Inc. v. Haco-CanonDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1989
  4. Agri-Mark, Inc. v. Niro, Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2000
  5. Acme Markets, Inc. v. Shaffer Trucking, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1984

5 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