Legal Opinion
Brooks v. Hickman
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Decided September 7, 1983No. Civ. A. 83-1313PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WEBER, District Judge.
This suit to recover lost investments and damages is a result of the plaintiffs’ unfortunate experience with the bulls, the bears, and their broker. The complaint tells a tale of fraud, mismanagement and misappropriated funds. Plaintiffs charge defendant Hickman with misconduct, and defendant Parker/Hunter with negligence and breach of contract.
Presently at issue is the propriety of plaintiffs’ claims for emotional distress. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages for emotional distress resulting from Parker/Hunter's negligent failure to supervise and investigate…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Sinn v. BurdSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
- Kewin v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance CompanyMichigan Supreme Court · 1980
- Niederman v. BrodskySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
- Sullivan v. O'CONNORMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1973
- Speck v. FinegoldSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Mest v. Cabot Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2006
- Miller v. Aluminum Co. of AmericaDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1988
- Alday v. Raytheon Co.District Court, D. Arizona · 2008
- Brooks v. HickmanDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1984
- Leo v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1995
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.