Somers v. Gross

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that when assessing the “underlying cause of action” for purposes of Rule 2252, courts have traditionally considered “the harm of which the plaintiff complains”
• noting that “the proper challenge to joinder is by way of preliminary objection to the joinder complaint”
• “[Rule 2252(a)] permits this joinder and we are not free to disregard the express language of the [R]ule.”
• where plaintiffs sued accountants for giving bad tax advice, accountants could join plaintiffs’ attorney as an additional defendant, because the accountants alleged that any harm to the plaintiffs was the sole fault of the plaintiffs’ attorney
• claims in the underlying complaint and joinder complaint arose from the same course of events where “[t]he transactions involved and the evidence pertinent thereto are the same in time and nature.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).