Skip to main content

Maritrans GP Inc. v. Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz

Citations

  • 602 A.2d 1277
  • 529 Pa. 241
  • 1992 Pa. LEXIS 36

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • stating that attorneys may be civilly liable for engaging in conduct, such as conflicts of interest, that violates their fiduciary duties to their clients
  • collecting cases from state courts in Florida, Minnesota, New York, and California and federal courts in the District of Columbia
  • stressing the difference between duties under rules of professional conduct and substantive liability standards
  • “Courts have also allowed civil actions for damages for an attorney’s breach of his fiduciary duties by engaging in conflicts of interest.” (citing cases)
  • “a fiduciary who breaches his duty of loyalty to his principal is liable to his principle, and an injunction is a proper remedy for the breach”
  • “[W]e [have] declared it ‘essential’ that the ‘activity sought to be restrained is actionable.’ Activity is actionable if it constitutes breach of a duty imposed by statute or by common law.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Zappala, Papadakos, Cappy

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

108 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

45 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Maritrans GP Inc. v. Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.