Legal Opinion

Mariscotti v. Tinari

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 30, 1984No. 2960PublishedCited by 50 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WIEAND, Judge:

In an action for legal malpractice and for breach of a contract of employment, Joan K. Mariscotti alleged that Nino V. Tinari, Esquire, gave her an incorrect evaluation of stock owned by her husband, John A. Mariscotti. This error, she alleged, impaired her ability to obtain the best possible property settlement upon dissolution of her marriage. The trial court granted Tinari’s motion for summary judgment because plaintiffs loss, if any, was too speculative to permit a recovery. 1 On appeal, we affirm.

A motion for summary judgment may be granted only if there is no genuine issue…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Budd v. NixenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  2. Thorsen v. Iron and Glass BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  3. Schenkel v. MonheitSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  4. Duke & Co. v. AndersonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  5. Pashak v. BarishSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982

3Cited by50 opinions

  1. Rizzo v. HainesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  2. Muhammad v. Strassburger, McKenna, Messer, Shilobod & GutnickSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  3. Pelagatti v. CohenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  4. O'Brien Energy Systems, Inc. v. AMERICAN EMPLOYERS'INS. CO.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
  5. Levenson v. SouserSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989

45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API