Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
McCarthy v. Recordex Service, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided April 4, 1996No. 95-1005Unknown
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partStapleton, Circuit Judge
As the court acknowledges, it is “beyond cavil that the attorney-client relationship is an agent-principal relationship.” (Majority Op. at 853.) Nevertheless, the court declares that the “attorneys [in this case], and not the clients, were undeniably the direct purchasers of the photocopies.” (Majority Op. at 852.) The first of these inconsistent propositions is clearly correct; it necessarily follows that the second is not. Because the photocopies were purchased from the defendant copy services by the attorneys, as agents for their disclosed client-principals, it is the clients, and not the…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of CarpentersSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Illinois Brick Co. v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Scott v. PurcellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
- Revere Press, Inc. v. BLUMBERGSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
- Hillbrook Apartments, Inc. v. Nyce Crete Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.