Opinion · Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Solomon v. Luria
213 Pa. Super. 87
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- Jurisdiction
- Pennsylvania
- Date
- 1968-09-12
- Topic
- intellectual-property-and-technology
How later courts describe this case
- “What was said and done by the parties as well as what was intended by what was said and done by them are questions of fact for the jury.”
- “[I]n the case of a disputed oral contract, what was said and done by the parties as well as what was intended by what was said and done by them are questions of fact for the jury.”
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Solomon v. Luria. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 32 opinions
213 Pa. Superior Ct. 87 (1968)
Solomon
Solomon
v.
Luria, Appellant.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Argued June 13, 1968. September 12, 1968.Before WRIGHT, P.J., WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, JACOBS, HOFFMAN, SPAULDING, and HANNUM, JJ.
Michael H. Egnal, with him Milton S. Lazaroff, and Egnal & Simons, for appellant.
*88 Jerome M. Dubyn, with him M. Mark Mendel, and Mendel & Dubyn, for appellee.
OPINION PER CURIAM, September 12, 1968:
The judgment of the court below is affirmed on the opinion of Honorable FRANCIS SHUNK BROWN, JR., P.J.