Legal Opinion
Livingston v. Fuhrman
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided June 6, 1944No. 170PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HOOD, Associate Judge.
The record shows that prior to the transaction in question the appellee wished to buy a diamond ring and was given the name and card of one Lassover. On the card appeared the name of Lassover and a telephone number and address. The number and address were that of Livingston & Company, a retail jewelry store operated by appellant. Appellee called Lassover at Livingston’s and made an appointment to see him. Pursuant to the appointment she went to the store of Livingston and was there shown diamond rings by Lassover. Later Lassover brought some rings to her home and she…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Hannon v. . Siegel-Cooper Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1901
- Rubbo v. Hughes Provision Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1941
- Fries, Beall & Sharp Co. v. LivingstoneCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1926
- Diebold Safe & Lock Co. v. Huston & BreedingSupreme Court of Kansas · 1895
- Berryhill v. EllettCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1933
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Sigal Construction Corp. v. StanburyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1991
- Insurance Management of Washington, Inc. v. Eno & Howard Plumbing Corp.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1975
- Drazin v. Jack Pry, IncorporatedDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1959
- Jack Pry, Incorporated v. DrazinDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1961
- A-J Marine, Inc. v. Corfu Contractors, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2011
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.