Philadelphia ex rel. DePaul v. Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Cercone, J.,
This appeal arises from the lower court’s denial of the defendant-appellant’s exceptions following a verdict for the plaintiff in an assumpsit action. The trial court, sitting without a jury, found that the appellant was liable for the reconstruction of sidewalks and curbing on Paul and Orthodox Streets in Philadelphia performed by the use plaintiff, Tony DePaul and Sons, pursuant to the general Ordinance, §11-505 of the Philadelphia Code.1 On review of all the evidence, even cast in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, we find the lower court erred and we,…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Blumenschein v. Pittsburgh Housing AuthoritySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
- Watkins v. Prudential InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
- Commonwealth v. VogelSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
- Allison v. Snelling & Snelling, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1967
- Downing v. Erie City School DistrictSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Overpeck v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1987
- Bonito Partners, LLC v. City of FlagstaffCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2012
- Overpeck v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1987
- Overpeck v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1987
- Sale of Pleasant Valley Manor, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Monroe County1975