Legal Opinion

Capek v. Devito

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 21, 2001No. 56 EAP 1999PublishedCited by 69 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

CAPPY, Justice.

The issue presented is whether the lower courts erred in awarding summary judgment to Appellee Jennifer Devito, thereby precluding Appellant, an attorney, from claiming a fee under a contingency fee agreement (“Agreement”) that included the language “no recovery no fee”, where the Agreement also provided for recovery of a fee under the doctrine of quantum meruit. For the reasons set forth herein, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. 1

The facts of this case, set forth in the light most favorable to Appellant as the non-moving party, Albright, 696 A.2d at 1165,…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Phillips v. A-Best Products Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  2. Safeguard Mutual Insurance v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  3. P.J.S. v. Pennsylvania State Ethics CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  4. Albright v. Abington Memorial HospitalSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  5. Dept. of Transp. v. Manor Mines, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989

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

3Cited by69 opinions

  1. Murphy v. Duquesne University of Holy GhostSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  2. Century Indemnity Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, LondonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2009
  3. Gutteridge v. A.P. Green Services, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  4. LJL Transportation, Inc. v. Pilot Air Freight Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
  5. Rauch v. Mike-MayerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2001

64 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