This case arose from the theft of a shipment of shoes owned by plaintiff Bressan Export-Import Company, which sued defendants Conlew and Forlini for conversion in federal court under diversity jurisdiction. Conlew had been convicted in a prior criminal proceeding of receiving and possessing the stolen goods, while Forlini testified at that trial about handling the goods but was never charged. The court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment against Conlew, holding that the criminal conviction for the identical acts conclusively established his liability for conversion under Pennsylvania law via collateral estoppel. The court denied summary judgment against Forlini, reasoning that his non-party testimony from the criminal trial could not substitute for an adjudication of his own liability and that he was entitled to a full civil trial. The decision applied precedents such as Hurtt v. Stirone to support using the conviction against Conlew while distinguishing the lack of any prior finding against Forlini.
The case arose from a nighttime car accident in which Andresen's vehicle, carrying passengers, struck the side of Williams' tractor-trailer that had become stuck perpendicularly across a highway. The jury awarded the passengers $225,000 against Williams but rejected Williams' claim for contribution or indemnity from Andresen. The court granted Williams judgment notwithstanding the verdict against Andresen, concluding that Andresen was negligent as a matter of law under Pennsylvania's assured clear distance rule because he failed to drive at a speed permitting him to stop within the visible distance ahead, even after emerging from a dip in a dark area of the road.
The case involved a seaman's personal injury lawsuit against Grace Line, Inc., for injuries sustained aboard the SS Santa Maria in 1967. The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, moved to transfer venue to the Eastern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1404, citing his residence and the location of witnesses and records there. The court denied the venue motion, reasoning that there was no sufficient change in circumstances to justify transfer, the three-year-old case was at the top of the trial list and a transfer would cause delay, and the plaintiff had not shown undue inconvenience in the current forum. Separately, the court granted the defendant's petition to enforce a $4,000 settlement agreement that the plaintiff had signed during negotiations, concluding that the agreement was voluntarily and intelligently entered into and was binding.
The case involved a contract dispute between Aberle Hosiery Company, a Pennsylvania corporation, and Speizman Industries, a North Carolina corporation, over the purchase of knitting machines that contained an arbitration clause under the rules of the American Arbitration Association. After Aberle refused delivery and objected to arbitration, it filed suit in state court seeking to enjoin arbitration, a declaratory judgment, and recovery of a deposit; Speizman removed the action to federal court and moved to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. The court denied Aberle's motion to remand, holding that the Association was not an indispensable party for diversity jurisdiction purposes and that complete diversity existed between the real parties. It also rejected the argument that Speizman, as an unregistered foreign corporation, was barred from moving to compel arbitration because the motion was in the nature of a counterclaim. The court ordered an evidentiary hearing to determine whether a genuine issue existed as to the making of the arbitration agreement.
In Flood v. M. P. Clark, Inc., the plaintiff, trustee in bankruptcy for Taylor’s Potato Chip Company, sought damages after the court found that defendant Clark breached a 1964-1965 contract to sell chipping potatoes by refusing deliveries after January 19, 1965. Plaintiff moved for a new trial on damages, claiming they should reflect the market-contract price difference for 3,500 bags, while defendant argued damages were limited to the cover amount actually purchased. The court denied the motion and upheld its prior award based on the cover difference for only 1,433.5 bags. The reasoning was that contract language used “approximately” for the quantity, required mutual agreement on shipment timing, and the parties’ prior performance showed Taylor’s consistently ordered at a lower rate; potatoes were available but Taylor’s finances prevented further purchases.
The case involved the Secretary of Labor suing Penn Packing Company under the Fair Labor Standards Act for alleged failures to pay required overtime compensation to employees including inside sales staff and maintenance workers who performed extra weekend duties. The court held that the company violated the Act by not paying overtime to two non-exempt employees (Allan Brown and Howard Kessler) whose duties involved order compilation and sales calls rather than qualifying administrative work, and for insufficient overtime in one secondary role, but found compliance for seven other employees under the Section 7(g)(2) exemption for separate kinds of work and adequate record-keeping. Jurisdiction was upheld under Section 17 without application of the novel-question bar from Section 16(c), and no injunction was ordered.