green
Positive treatment
14.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 1964 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1964
1995
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Zeno v. Ford Motor Co., Inc.
See Kligman v. Advanced Polymer Systems, Inc., 2001 WL 1173998 , *3 n. 4 (E.D.Pa.2001)(“[T]he failure of a literate adult to read a contract or a decision by him to sign in haste without understanding the terms does not alter the enforceability of the contract.”)(citing Tose v. First Pennsylvania Bank, N.A., 648 F.2d 879, 900 (3d Cir.1981); Simeone v. Simeone, 525 Pa. 392 , 581 A.2d 162, 165 (1990); Thrasher v. Rothrock, 377 Pa. 562 , 105 A.2d 600, 604 (1954)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Borrell v. Borrell
Such things are no ground for reforming or invalidating a contract.” Thrasher v. Roth-rock, 377 Pa. 562 , 105 A.2d 600, 604 (1954) [ (Opinion of the Trial Court) ].
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Federal Leasing Corp. v. Route 202 Corp.
Farris Engineering Corporation v. Service Bureau Corporation, 276 F.Supp. 643, 645 (D.N.J.1967), aff’d, 406 F.2d 519 (3d Cir. 1969); National State Bank of Newark v. Terminal Construction Corporation, 217 F.Supp. 341, 345 (D.N.J.1963), aff'd. 328 F.2d 315 (3d Cir. 1964); Fried v. Feola, 129 F.Supp. 699, 703 (W.D.Pa.1954); Estate of Brant, 463 Pa. 230, 235-36 , 344 A.2d 806, 809 (1975); Abel Holding Co. v. American District Telegraph Company, 138 N.J.Super. 137, 157 , 350 A.2d 292, 303 (1975), aff’d, 147 N.J.Super. 263 , 371 A.2d 111 (1977); Thrasher v. Rothrock, 377 Pa. 562 , 105 A.2d 600,…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Brokers Title Company, Inc., and the Title Guarantee Company v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, and the Title Guarantee Company
(2×)
Such things are no ground for reforming or invalidating a contract.” Thrasher v. Rothrock, 377 Pa. 562 , 105 A.2d 600, 604 (1954).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Central Contracting Company v. Maryland Casualty Company
(2×)
As far back as a century ago Chief Justice Gibson sitting at nisi prius said in language which has frequently been repeated: 'If a party who can read * * * will not read a deed put before him for execution; or if, being unable to read, will not demand to have it read or explained to him, he is guilty of supine negligence, which, I take it, is not the subject of protection, either in equity or at law.' Greenfield's Estate, 14 Pa. 489, 496 (1850). 6 'It falls stale upon the ear', said Bok, P.J. in an opinion affirmed per curiam by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Thrasher v. Rothrock, 377 Pa. 5…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Central Contracting Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co.
(2×)
As far back as a century ago Chief Justice Gibson sitting at nisi prius said in language which has frequently been repeated: “If a party who can read * * * will not read a deed put before him for execution; or if, being unable to read, will not demand to have it read or explained to him, he is guilty of supine negligence, which, I take it, is not the subject of protection, either in equity or at law.” Greenfield’s Estate, 14 Pa. 489, 496 (1850). 6 “It falls stale upon the ear”, said Bok, P. J. in an opinion affirmed per curiam by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Thrasher v. Rothrock…
discussed
Cited "see"
Estate and Trust of Edward E. Clawson
(2×)
See Thrasher v. Rothrock, 377 Pa. 562 , 105 A.2d 600, 604 (1954) (citing In re Ridgway's Account, 206 Pa. 587 , 56 A. 25 (1903)).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re:Petition of Navarra, S. Appeal of:Navarra,C
(2×)
See Thrasher v. Rothrock , 377 Pa. 562 , 105 A.2d 600 , 604 (1954) (citing In re Ridgway's Account 206 Pa. 587 , 56 A. 25 (1903) ).
discussed
Cited "see"
Gocek v. Gocek
(2×)
See Thrasher v. Rothrock, 377 Pa. 562 , 105 A.2d 600, 604 (1954); Loyal Christian Benefit Association v. Bender, 342 Pa.Super. 614 , 493 A.2d 760, 762 (1985); Murray on Contracts, § 91E (3rd ed. 1990) (Unilateral versus mutual mistake — remedies).
discussed
Cited "see"
Abraham Zion Corporation v. Lebow
(2×)
See Thrasher v. Rothrock, 377 Pa. 562 , 105 A.2d 600, 604 (1954). 46 We conclude, therefore, that even if the name "Harry Lebow" be deemed a variant of the name "Lebow," the district court was correct in concluding that Harry had no contractual obligation to forgo the use of his own name in connection with the men's clothing business.
discussed
Cited "see"
Abraham Zion Corp. v. Lebow
(2×)
See Thrasher v. Rothrock, 377 Pa. 562 , 105 A.2d 600, 604 (1954).
cited
Cited "see"
Stanley A. Klopp, Inc. v. John Deere Co.
See Thrasher v. Rothrock, 105 A.2d 600, 604 (1954).
discussed
Cited "see"
Levin v. Garfinkle
(2×)
See Thrasher v. Rothrock, 377 Pa. 562 , 105 A.2d 600 (1954).
discussed
Cited "see"
Keyes v. Taylor
(2×)
See Thrasher v. Rothrock, 377 Pa. 562 , 105 A. 2d 600 (1954); McFadden v. American Oil Co., 215 Pa. Superior Ct. 44 , 257 A. 2d 283 (1969).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
InterDigital Communications, Corp. v. Federal Insurance
(2×)
Id. at 656-57; see also Thrasher v. Rothrock, 377 Pa. 562 , 105 A.2d 600, 604 (1954) (affirming, per curiam, a lower court decision concluding that the Commonwealth Trust decision was not applicable because the contract at issue was not founded on mutual mistake). 15 Commonwealth Trust, thus, is not helpful to Interdigital in this case.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lotman v. Security Mutual Life Insurance
(2×)
See, e. g., Thrasher v. Rothrock, 377 Pa. 562 , 105 A.2d 600 (1954). .
Thrasher, Appellant,
v.
Rothrock
v.
Rothrock
Appeal, 75.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
May 24, 1954.
Reporter’s Note: The issue in this suit in equity was whether the remaining assets of a partnership should he distributed according to an account stated, prepared by the partnership’s accountant (as plaintiff contended), or according to a subsequent written agreement between the parties (as defendant contended). The chancellor held that (1) the latter was a valid agreement, (2) the evidence did not prove that a term had been omitted from the written agreement by mutual mistake, and (3) the written agreement superseded the earlier account stated. The chancellor also held that the defendant had not proved his counterclaim, and dismissed the complaint. Upon consideration of defendant’s exceptions to the ruling on the counterclaim, they were sustained and a final decree was entered dismissing the complaint and setting forth the amount due the defendant out of the remaining partnership assets., ISamuel Finestone, with him W. Horace Hepburn, Jr., for appellant., Frederick V. Hebard, with him John A. Fichman, 3rd, and Clark, Hebard & Spahr, for appellee.
Stern, Stearns, Jones, Bell, Chidsey, Musmanno, Arnold.
Cited by 26 opinions | Published
Opinion
Per Curiam,The final decree entered by the learned court below is affirmed at the appellant’s costs on the adjudication of President Judge Bok as modified by the opinion for the court en banc in disposing of the exceptions filed to the decree nisi.