Opinion
J-15A-B-2016 No. 8 WAP 2015 No. 9 WAP 2015
04-25-2016
MEYER, DARRAGH, BUCKLER, BEBENEK & ECK, P.L.L.C. v. LAW FIRM OF MALONE MIDDLEMAN, P.C., AND CANDACE A. EAZOR AND RICHARD EAZOR, AS EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF RICHARD A. EAZOR APPEAL OF: LAW FIRM OF MALONE MIDDLEMAN, P.C.
[MO: Baer, J.] Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered June 17, 2014 at No. 1470 WDA 2012, vacating the Judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County entered August 22, 2012 at No. AR 10-007964 and remanding Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered June 17, 2014 at No. 1484 WDA 2012, vacating the Judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County entered August 22, 2012 at No. AR 10-007964 and remanding CONCURRING OPINION JUSTICE TODD
I join the Majority Opinion except for the following point. The majority does not address the dilemma, but I fully agree with the expressions of Chief Justice Saylor regarding the predicament in which Meyer Darragh finds itself concerning the quantum meruit issue. See Concurring Opinion (Saylor, C.J.) at 2-3. Therefore, having prevailed below, and given our admonitions in Lebanon Valley Farmers Bank v. Commonwealth, 83 A.3d 107, 113 (2013), against successful litigants filing protective cross appeals, I would expressly permit Meyer Darragh to file a nunc pro tunc cross petition for allowance of appeal within 30 days of our decision herein. Further, I would refer to the Appellate Rules Committee the question of amendments to our appellate rules which account for the impact of Lebanon Valley in the procedural context of this case.