Kituskie v. Corbman
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
CASTILLE, Justice.
This Court granted allocatur in this matter in order to address two issues. The first issue is whether the collectibility of damages in an underlying action is relevant to and, therefore, admissible in a legal malpractice action. The second issue is, if collectibility of damages should be considered, which party bears the burden of proving collectibility. Because we find that collectibility of damages in the underlying action should be considered in a legal malpractice action and that the defendant/attorney bears the burden of proof, we affirm the order…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Rizzo v. HainesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
- Blackwell v. Com. State Ethics Com'nSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
- Christy v. SalitermanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1970
- Rorrer v. CookeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1985
- Jourdain v. DineenSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1987
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by133 opinions
- In the Interest of L.J.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
- Huber v. TaylorCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2006
- Steiner v. MarkelSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
- Walnut Street Associates, Inc. v. Brokerage Concepts, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
- Birth Center v. St. Paul Companies, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
128 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.