# Meyer, Darragh, Buckler, Bebenek & Eck, P.L.L.C. v. Law Firm of Malone Middleman, P.C.

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · April 25, 2016 · 635 Pa. 427

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4970527

## Case

- **Full name:** 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. 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.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** April 25, 2016
- **Citations:** 635 Pa. 427; 137 A.3d 1247
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Todd
- **Judges:** Baer, Donohue, Dougherty, Saylor, Todd, Wecht
- **Cited by:** 291 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4970527

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating, “[it] is well-established that three elements are necessary to plead a cause of action for breach of contract: (1) - 13 - J-A06008-26 the existence of a contract, including its essential terms, (2) a breach of the contract; and, (3) resultant damages”
- stating she would “expressly permit Meyer Darragh to file a nunc pro tunc cross[-]petition for allowance of appeal” and “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 co…
- clarifying that Meyer Darragh was not required to file a protective cross-appeal where it prevailed below on its quantum meruit claim, and citing Lebanon Valley Farmers Bank v. Commonwealth, 83 A.3d 107, 113 (Pa. 2013) for proposition that “a successful litigant need not file …
- stating that a quantum meruit action “sounds in quasi-contract or contract implied in law," and seeks restitution from those “unjustly enriched by the services of another”
- explaining the elements of breach of contract under Pennsylvania law as “(1) the existence of a contract, including its essential terms, (2) a breach of the contract; and, (3) resultant damages”

## Opinion text

Justice TODD,
concurring.
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 Say-lor regarding the predicament in which Meyer Darragh finds itself concerning the quantum meruit issue. See Concurring Opinion (Saylor, C.J.) at 1259-60. Therefore, having prevailed below, and given our admonitions in- Lebanon Valley Farmers Bank v. Commonwealth, 623 Pa. 455 , 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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4970527. Public record. Not legal advice.