Sposito v. Fortuner
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County
1Opinion of the Court
CORBETT, J,
ORDER
And now, March 25, 2003, upon consideration of the plaintiff/counterclaim defendant’s (Sposito or plaintiff) motion for summary judgment filed to defendants/counterclaim plaintiffs (Fortuner or defendants) counterclaim, it is hereby ordered and decreed that Sposito’s motion is denied for the reasons set forth herein.
The facts in this case indicate that the defendants retained plaintiff to represent them to object to the administration and accounting in the estate of Joseph Fortuner Sr. A fee agreement was allegedly signed by the parties on or about August 4, 1996, which read,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Fiorentino v. RapoportSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
- Williams v. SyedCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
- Buckno v. Penn Linen & Uniform Service, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
- Goldberg v. Delta Tau DeltaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
- Laich v. BraceyCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.