Legal Opinion

Mann v. Schultz

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Bucks County

Decided December 29, 1997No. 96-01078-17-2Published

1Opinion of the Court

SCOTT, J.,

Defendants, Ivan Schultz and Michael Schultz, t/a 1000 Washington Associates and Have-A-Vend Inc., have filed a motion for post-trial relief. For the following reasons, the motion is denied.

*65The factual history in this matter is as follows. Plaintiff, Raymond Mann, was employed by Have-A-Cup as a truck driver and delivery person. Ivan and Michael Schultz, as individuals, own a warehouse facility which houses two companies, Cup and Have-A-Vend. Both Cup and Vend are owned by Ivan and Michael Schultz, t/a 1000 Washington Associates.

On the morning of February 14, 1994, Mann arrived at…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Bolus v. United Penn BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  2. Whistler Sportswear, Inc. v. RulloSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  3. Montgomery v. South Philadelphia Medical Group, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  4. Doe v. RaezerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  5. Weidemoyer v. SwartzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1962

3 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