Schwartz v. Rockey

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Schwartz v. Rockey

908 A.2d 267

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedSeptember 6, 2006

DocketAppeal No. 91 WAL 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 908 A.2d 267 (Schwartz v. Rockey) 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

Schwartz v. Rockey, 908 A.2d 267 (Pa. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 6th day of September, 2006, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED, limited to the following:

a. Did the Superior Court misapply the law of election of remedies and therefore incorrectly hold that the trial court misapplied the law when it held that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to rescission because they had effectively affirmed the contract?

b. Did the Superior Court err in holding that proof of fraud alone, without more, is sufficient for a court to award treble damages under the UTPCPL?

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 6th day of September, 2006, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED, limited to the following:

a. Did the Superior Court misapply the law of election of remedies and therefore incorrectly hold that the trial court misapplied the law when it held that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to rescission because they had effectively affirmed the contract?

b. Did the Superior Court err in holding that proof of fraud alone, without more, is sufficient for a court to award treble damages under the UTPCPL?

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

908 A.2d 267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwartz-v-rockey-pa-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack