Federal Case

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that claim for breach of fiduciary duties imposed on joint venturers was not barred notwithstanding fact that joint venture relationship was created by agreement
• holding that the gist of a claim based on actions prohibited by a contractual agreement is breach of contract, not tort
• holding that Pennsylvania law allows use of extrinsic evidence to establish a latent ambiguity
• noting that whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law subject to plenary review
• noting that whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law subject to plenary review
• holding breach of fiduciary duty claim not barred by gist of the action doctrine where duties owned minority partner were separate and distinct from contractual duties of joint venture agreement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).