Capek v. DeVito

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Capek v. DeVito

740 A.2d 1142

DecidedDecember 1, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 740 A.2d 1142 (Capek v. DeVito) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Capek v. DeVito, 740 A.2d 1142 (Pa. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 1st day of December, 1999, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED to address:

Whether the lower courts erred in awarding summary judgment precluding a lawyer the right to claim a fee under a contingency fee agreement that included the language “no recovery no fee,” where the fee agreement also specifically provided for recovery of a fee under the doctrine of quantum meruit.

Justice NIGRO did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 1st day of December, 1999, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED to address:

Whether the lower courts erred in awarding summary judgment precluding a lawyer the right to claim a fee under a contingency fee agreement that included the language “no recovery no fee,” where the fee agreement also specifically provided for recovery of a fee under the doctrine of quantum meruit.

Justice NIGRO did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

740 A.2d 1142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/capek-v-devito-pa-1999.