Legal Opinion
McMullen v. Kutz
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided December 28, 2009No. 103 MAP 2007PublishedCited by 101 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Justice BAER.
We granted review in this case to determine whether a court may consider the reasonableness of attorney fees claimed in a breach of contract action where the contract does not specify that the fees incurred must be reasonable. In the case before us, the parties entered into a marriage and property settlement agreement that provided for the payment of attorney fees and costs incurred by one party in enforcing the contract against the breaching party. The trial court concluded that Appellee Ronald E. Kutz (“Husband”) breached the agreement by failing to pay Appellant…
2Cases cited38 opinions
- Myers v. KayhoeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2006
- Mahani v. Edix Media Group, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 2007
- LaRocca EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
- Atlantic Contracting & Material Co. v. Ulico Casualty Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2004
- Turner v. TerryMississippi Supreme Court · 2001
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by101 opinions
- Braun v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
- Wert v. ManorCare of Carlisle PA, LLCSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
- Commonwealth v. WeirSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2018
- Robert Occhifinto v. Olivo Construction Co., LLC (073174)Supreme Court of New Jersey · 2015
- Andrews v. Cross Atlantic Capital Partners, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
96 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.