Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

HAROLD G. HOFFMAN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. BOAKE CARTER, WCAU BROADCASTINGCOMPANY, ATLANTIC BROADCASTING CORPORATION, AND PHILCO RADIO AND TELEVISIONCORPORATION OF NEW YORK, DEFENDANTS, AND PHILCO RADIO AND TELEVISIONCORPORATION, PHILCO RADIO AND TELEVISION CORPORATION OF PENNSYLVANIA,PHILADELPHIA STORAGE BATTERY COMPANY AND COLUMBIA BROADCAST SYSTEM,INCORPORATED, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment under review will be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Bodine in the Supreme Court; except, however, that the affirmance as to Columbia Broadcasting System, Incorporated, is upon the ground that it was not served with process. We reserve decision as to whether the delivery at radio receivers in this state of programs transmitted by the Columbia company from its New York studio in any sense or to any degree constituted the doing of business by it in this state. For affirmance — THE CHANCELLOR, CHIEF JUSTICE, PARKER, LLOYD, CASE, DONGES, HETFIELD, DEAR, WELLS, WOLFSKEIL, JJ. 10.

For affirmance in part — PERSKIE, RAFFERTY, COLE, JJ. 3.

For reversal — RAFFERTY, COLE, JJ. 2.

For reversal in part — HETFIELD, J. 1.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

HOFFMAN v. CARTER
(Jul 7, 1937)