Legal Opinion
Gans v. Gray
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided May 24, 1985No. Civ. A. 82-0352PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
GILES, District Judge.
This action arises out of Curtis G. Gans’ claim that his former attorney, S. Simpson, Gray, committed legal malpractice in the course of prosecuting his personal injury action against the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (“AMTRAK”) under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (“FELA”), 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq. (1976). See Gans v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., (“AMTRAK"), Civil Action No. 77-3883 (E.D.Pa.1980) (“the underlying action”). Defendant has moved for summary judgment. For the following reasons, defendant’s motion shall be granted.
I. FACTS
On…
2Cases cited42 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Boag v. MacDougallSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Goodman v. Mead Johnson & Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1976
- Hamil v. BashlineSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
- Fireman's Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey v. Raymond DufresneCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1982
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Charles Reinhart Co. v. WiniemkoMichigan Supreme Court · 1994
- Trice v. MozenterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
- Myers v. Robert Lewis Seigle, PCSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
- Dechert Price & Rhoads v. Direct Satellite Communications, Inc. (In Re Direct Satellite Communications, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1989
- Astech International, LLC v. HusickDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2009
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.