Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Bailey v. Tucker

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 26, 1993No. J-63-1988 and J-167-1990Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partLarsen, Justice

I concur, in part, in the result reached in the appeal of Clarence Bailey at No. 34 W.D. Appeal Docket 1987. Although I disagree that the cause of action accrued at the time *265of the termination of the attorney-client relationship, I agree that appellant Bailey’s allegations of negligence in his action for legal malpractice against Robert E. Tucker and Daniel M. Berger are time barred by the two-year statute of limitations applicable to negligence actions. I dissent, however, from the finding of the majority that Bailey is precluded from litigating that part of his complaint sounding in…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Krahn v. KinneyOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  2. James W. McCord Jr. v. F. Lee BaileyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1980
  3. Muhammad v. Strassburger, McKenna, Messer, Shilobod & GutnickSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  4. Bowman v. DohertySupreme Court of Kansas · 1984
  5. Mylar v. WilkinsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1983

12 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