Legal Opinion

Maritrans GP Inc. v. Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 29, 1992No. 99 E.D. Appeal Docket 1990PublishedCited by 166 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

PAPADAKOS, Justice.

This case involves the question of whether the conduct of Appellee-attorneys is actionable independent of any violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. While we agree that violations of the Code do not per se give rise to legal actions that may be brought by clients or other private parties, we, nevertheless, conclude that the record supports a finding that Appellees’ conduct here constituted a breach of common law fiduciary duty owed to Appellant-clients and that, contrary to Appellees’ argument that they cannot be prevented from…

2Cases cited36 opinions

  1. Woods v. City Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
  2. T. C. Theatre Corp. v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1953
  3. Adler, Barish, Daniels, Levin & Creskoff v. EpsteinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  4. Rizzo v. HainesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  5. John G. Bryant Co. v. Sling Testing & Repair, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977

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

3Cited by166 opinions

  1. Etoll, Inc. v. Elias/Savion Advertising, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  2. W. Channing Nicholas, M.D. v. Pennsylvania State UniversityCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
  3. ACUMED LLC v. Advanced Surgical Services, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2009
  4. Summit Towne Centre, Inc. v. Shoe Show of Rocky Mount, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  5. Mikhail v. KahnDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2014

161 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