Legal Opinion

Laurel Coal Co. v. Walter E. Heller & Co., Inc.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Decided May 7, 1982No. Civ. A. 82-285PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

TEITELBAUM, District Judge.

Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This diversity action arises out of the events surrounding the repossession of a bulldozer by defendant. Plaintiff, Laurel Coal Co., was admittedly an obligor under a promissory note held by defendant Walter E. Heller & Co., Inc. The collateral for the note was a bulldozer. Upon plaintiff’s alleged default and failure to tender full payment of the note as demanded defendant repossessed the bulldozer…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Jackson v. Richards 5 & 10 Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  2. Stewart v. F. A. North Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1916

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Davenport v. Chrysler Credit Corp.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1991
  2. Slowinski v. Valley Nat. BankNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1993
  3. Chrysler Credit Corp. v. KoontzAppellate Court of Illinois · 1996
  4. Williamson v. Fowler Toyota, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1998
  5. Bloomquist v. First National Bank of Elk RiverCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985

11 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