Legal Opinion

Vaccone v. Syken

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 19, 2006No. 30 EAP 2005PublishedCited by 44 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

Justice BALDWIN.

This Appeal presents the question of whether an order disqualifying trial counsel in a civil case is an interlocutory order, which is not immediately appealable. Appellants Joseph and Rose Vaccone contend that the trial court erred in disqualifying their counsel, Frank D. Branella, from represénting them in their action against Appellee Marc J. Syken. The Superior Court quashed their appeal of this order, ruling that the order disqualifying counsel is interlocutory, and is not an appealable collateral order under Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure (“Pa.R.A.P.”)…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Flanagan v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Richardson-Merrell Inc. v. Koller Ex Rel. KollerSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  3. Pugar v. GrecoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  4. Melvin v. DoeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  5. Commonwealth v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998

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

3Cited by44 opinions

  1. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. KellerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  2. Board of Revision of Taxes, City of Philadelphia v. City of PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
  3. League of Women Voters of PA v. CmwlthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2018
  4. Shearer, D., Aplts. v. Hafer, S.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2018
  5. Commonwealth v. ScarboroughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2013

39 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