History
  • No items yet
midpage
84 A.3d 1058
Pa.
2014

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 30th day of January, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:

1. Whether the Superior Court erred when it held that a private plaintiff who alleges deceptive conduct under the UTPCPL’s “catch-all” provision, 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(xxi), need not allege and prove justifiable reliance, contrary to the decisions of this Court, earlier decisions of the Superior Court, and federal decisions construing the UTPCPL.
2. Whether the Superior Court erred when it held that a plaintiff may satisfy the UTPCPL’s “ascertainable loss” requirement by voluntarily hiring an attorney and allegedly incurring litigation costs to challenge allegedly wrongful conduct, even where, as here, the plaintiff paid no money to the defendant as a result of that conduct.

Case Details

Case Name: Grimes v. Enterprise Leasing Co.
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Date Published: Jan 30, 2014
Citations: 84 A.3d 1058; 624 Pa. 228; 2014 Pa. LEXIS 326; 2014 WL 349263; No. 488 MAL 2013
Docket Number: No. 488 MAL 2013
Court Abbreviation: Pa.
AI-generated responses must be verified
and are not legal advice.
Log In
    Grimes v. Enterprise Leasing Co., 84 A.3d 1058