Merlini Ex Rel. Merlini v. Gallitzin Water Authority
950 A.2d 264
Opinion
ORDER
AND NOW, this 20th day of May, 2008 the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:
(1) Whether the Superior Court’s published decision below is inconsistent with its decision in Varner v. Classic Communities Corporation, [890 A.2d 1068 (Pa.Super.2006)] relative to professional negligence claims?
a) Whether a cause of action is one of professional negligence if it depends upon expert testimony for elucidation?
b) Whether the Superior Court erred in concluding that, although expert testimony is required as to [Petitioner]^ negligence, [Respondent]^ cause of action was not one of professional negligence?
(2) Whether the Superior Court erred in failing to apply the plain language of the Engineer, Land Surveyor and Geologist *265 registration law in holding that the subject of complaint did not assert a professional negligence claim?
Justice TODD 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
Merlini Ex Rel. Merlini v. Gallitzin Water Authority, 950 A.2d 264 (Pa. 2008).
950 A.2d 264 (Merlini Ex Rel. Merlini v. Gallitzin Water Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
French v. Commonwealth Associates, Inc.
980 A.2d 623 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2009)
Lewis v. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY
950 A.2d 264 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2008)