Trial court properly granted attorneys' preliminary objections and dismissed appellants' legal malpractice action, because appellants' challenge to a settlement agreement in an underlying property dispute did not allege fraud as required by public policy. Affirmed.
July 29, 2016 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
Settlement Agreement • Lack of Consent • Fraud • Public Policy
Kapuscinski v. Cavalier, PICS Case No. 16-0935 (Pa. Super. July 14, 2016) (memorandum) Bender, P.J. (7 pages).
Trial court properly granted attorneys’ preliminary objections and dismissed appellants’ legal malpractice action, because appellants’ challenge to a settlement agreement in an underlying property dispute did not allege fraud as required by public policy. Affirmed.
Presented by BigVoodoo
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
This conference aims to help insurers and litigators better manage complex claims and litigation.
Recognizing innovation in the legal technology sector for working on precedent-setting, game-changing projects and initiatives.
Description:NFSA has a great opportunity for a Labor Relations Associate and Junior Counsel. This position will support NFSA's collective ba...
McCarter & English, LLP is seeking litigation attorneys for our Newark, NJ offices. Candidates must have 3-6 years of law firm experien...
McCarter & English, LLP is actively seeking a corporate associate for its office located in Boston, MA. Candidate must have 2 - 5 years ...
