Case Name: Jacqueline RUPERT, Petitioner v. Thomas W. KING, III, Esquire, Dillon McCandless King Coulter & Graham, LLP. Jay D. Marinstein, Esquire and Fox Rothschild, LLP, Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2019-02-21
Citations: 203 A.3d 964
Docket Number: No. 156 WM 2018
Parties: Jacqueline RUPERT, Petitioner
v.
Thomas W. KING, III, Esquire, Dillon McCandless King Coulter & Graham, LLP. Jay D. Marinstein, Esquire and Fox Rothschild, LLP, Respondents
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 203
Pages: 964–964

Head Matter:
Jacqueline RUPERT, Petitioner
v.
Thomas W. KING, III, Esquire, Dillon McCandless King Coulter & Graham, LLP. Jay D. Marinstein, Esquire and Fox Rothschild, LLP, Respondents
No. 156 WM 2018
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
February 21, 2019
ORDER

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 21st day of February, 2019, the Petition for Permission to Appeal is GRANTED. The issues on appeal, as framed by Petitioner, are:
1) Is an award of punitive damages against an attorney, as provided for by the Dragonetti Act, [see 42 Pa.C.S. § 8351-8354,] an unconstitutional infringement upon the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's power to regulate the conduct of attorneys?
2) If the answer to the foregoing is in the affirmative, does the immunity from punitive damages also apply to a plaintiff in an action who is represented by counsel, who seeks and is denied affirmative relief, but who also happens to be an attorney?
The Prothonotary is DIRECTED to provide notice of this order to the Office of the Attorney General. See Pa.R.A.P. 521 (providing that notice is to be given to the Attorney General that the constitutionality of a statute is in question in an appellate matter).