Schwartz v. Rockey

908 A.2d 267, 589 Pa. 251, 2006 Pa. LEXIS 1715

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Schwartz v. Rockey. Read the opinion of the Court — 908 A.2d 267 →

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided September 6, 2006·No. Appeal No. 91 WAL 2006·Published

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:

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?

Schwartz v. Rockey, 908 A.2d 267, 589 Pa. 251, 2006 Pa. LEXIS 1715 (Pa. 2006).

Pincite

908 A.2d 267 (Schwartz v. Rockey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.