Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Dougherty v. Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 11, 2014PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Concurrence

CONCURRING OPINION BY

DONOHUE, J.:

I concur in the learned Majority’s decision to deny Pepper Hamilton’s Application to Quash and to reverse the trial court’s order denying Dougherty’s Motion to Disqualify Counsel. I write separately to clarify my position on certain issues and to state additional reasons for supporting reversal.

First, with respect to Pepper Hamilton’s Application to Quash, pursuant to Rule 313 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, an interlocutory order may be deemed collateral if it satisfies a three-prong test: (1) it is separable from the main cause of action;…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
  2. Pugar v. GrecoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  3. Bell v. Beneficial Consumer Discount Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  4. Tekni-Plex, Inc. v. Meyner & LandisNew York Court of Appeals · 1996
  5. Ben v. SchwartzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Darrow, M. v. PPL Electric Utilities Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2021
  2. Rudalavage, M. v. PPL Electric Utilities Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2022

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API