Coleman v. Morris

68 A.3d 328

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided June 13, 2013·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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?

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

Pincite

68 A.3d 328 (Coleman v. Morris) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Knopick v. Downey

963 F. Supp. 2d 378 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 2013)

Opinion

Related