Grossman v. Rosen
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
WIEAND, Judge:
The present appeal derives from a suit brought by an accounting firm against an attorney who allegedly sent fraudulent letters to the clients of the firm. The trial court, concluding that the action was barred by the prohibition against double recovery and principles of collateral estoppel, granted the attorney’s motion for summary judgment. Following careful review, we conclude that the grant of summary judgment was improper and must be reversed.
The relevant facts are as follows. In the latter part of 1980, Attorney Paul R. Rosen, acting on behalf of Alan Grossman (“A…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Marks v. TasmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
- Safeguard Mutual Insurance v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
- City of Pittsburgh v. Zoning Board of AdjustmentSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
- Hilbert v. RothSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
- Day v. Volkswagenwerk AktiengesellschaftSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Ammon v. McCloskeySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
- Hopewell Estates, Inc. v. KentSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
- Underhill Coal Mining Co. v. HixonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
- Anthony v. Browne, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Monroe County2001
- Butler v. Samsonite Furniture Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County1994
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.