Rupert, J., Pet v. King, T.
This text of 203 A.3d 964 (Rupert, J., Pet v. King, T.) 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.
Opinion
AND NOW, this 21st day of February, 2019, the Petition for Permission to Appeal is GRANTED. The issues on appeal, as framed by Petitioner, are:
1) Is an award of punitive damages against an attorney, as provided for by the Dragonetti Act, [ see 42 Pa.C.S. § 8351-8354,] an unconstitutional infringement upon the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's power to regulate the conduct of attorneys?
2) If the answer to the foregoing is in the affirmative, does the immunity from punitive damages also apply to a plaintiff in an action who is represented by counsel, who seeks and is denied affirmative relief, but who also happens to be an attorney?
The Prothonotary is DIRECTED to provide notice of this order to the Office of the Attorney General. See Pa.R.A.P. 521 (providing that notice is to be given to the Attorney General that the constitutionality of a statute is in question in an appellate matter).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
203 A.3d 964, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rupert-j-pet-v-king-t-pa-2019.