Coleman v. Morris

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Coleman v. Morris

68 A.3d 328

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 13, 2013

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 68 A.3d 328 (Coleman v. Morris) 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

Coleman v. Morris, 68 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 13th day of June 2013, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:

Does the limitation on damages in a legal malpractice action sounding only in contract set forth in Bailey v. Tucker, 533 Pa. 237, 252, 621 A.2d 108, 115 (1993) — which limited such damages to “the amount actually paid for the services plus statutory interest” in a case involving an underlying criminal representation — apply where the underlying representation is a civil one?

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 13th day of June 2013, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:

Does the limitation on damages in a legal malpractice action sounding only in contract set forth in Bailey v. Tucker, 533 Pa. 237, 252, 621 A.2d 108, 115 (1993) — which limited such damages to “the amount actually paid for the services plus statutory interest” in a case involving an underlying criminal representation — apply where the underlying representation is a civil one?

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 A.3d 328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coleman-v-morris-pa-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack