TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Weinrich v. Retail Credit Co.

John E. WEINRICH v. RETAIL CREDIT COMPANY, a corporation of the State of Georgia

Weinrich v. Retail Credit Co., 186 F. Supp. 392 (W.D. Pa. 1960)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Federal District Courts
Decided
September 16, 1960
Docket
No. 60-484
Judges
Gourley
Citations
186 F. Supp. 3921960 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3438

Opinion of the Court — Gourley

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

GOURLEY, Chief Judge.

In this action for damages alleging defamation of character, defendant moves to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, Rule 12(b) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.

The complaint alleges, inter alia, that defendant, a mercantile reporting corporation, submitted a report concerning the plaintiff’s moral character to one of its subscribers to whom plaintiff had made application for employment, that was scandalous, derogatory and defamatory, and that such publication was made by the defendant maliciously and in wanton and reckless disregard of plaintiff’s rights.

Counsel for defendant contends that the allegation is not inclusive of the requirement that a complainant must assert an abuse of the privileged relationship existing between the defendant and its subscriber, Campbell v. Willmark Service System, 3 Cir., 123 F.2d 204 .

A motion to dismiss a complaint must be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. A complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears to a certainty that plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any state of facts which could be proved in support of his claim; further, no matter how likely it may seem that the pleader will be unable to prove his case, he is entitled upon averring a claim to an opportunity to try to prove it. Frederick Hart & Co., Inc. v. Recordgraph Corp., 3 Cir., 169 F.2d 580 .

*393 I am satisfied that construing the complaint in a light most favorable to plaintiff, the allegation embraces language sufficient to allege an abuse of a privileged relationship, and states a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint will be refused.

An appropriate order is entered.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1964: 21978: 119642026peak 1964 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. M. L. Lee & Co. v. American Cardboard & Packaging Corp.36 F.R.D. 27 (E.D. Pa. 1964)
  2. Miller v. Bargain City, U.S.A., Inc.229 F. Supp. 33 (E.D. Pa. 1964)
  3. Fillippo v. S. Bonaccurso & Sons, Inc.466 F. Supp. 1008 (E.D. Pa. 1978)

Most recent

  1. Fillippo v. S. Bonaccurso & Sons, Inc.466 F. Supp. 1008 (E.D. Pa. 1978)
  2. M. L. Lee & Co. v. American Cardboard & Packaging Corp.36 F.R.D. 27 (E.D. Pa. 1964)
  3. Miller v. Bargain City, U.S.A., Inc.229 F. Supp. 33 (E.D. Pa. 1964)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Frederick Hart & Co. v. Recordgraph Corp., 169 F.2d 580 (3d Cir. 1948) 198
Campbell v. Willmark Serv. Sys., Inc., 123 F.2d 204 (3d Cir. 1941) 14

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list