Epstein Secrets

e plaintiff cannot blame someone els for the consequences of her own criminal conduct. CI Fe/d & Sons, Inc. v. Pechner, Dorfman, Wolfe, Rounick and Cabot, 458 A.2d 545, 552 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1983) (holding that law-firm clients could not recover damages flowing from their own criminal acts, even though

(Fla. 1950) (observing that "'instances of conspiracy which is in itself an independent tort are rare and should be added to with caution" (quoting Fleming v. Dane, 22 N.E.2d 609, 611, (Mass. 1939))) (emphasis added). Plainly, this case involves the general rule, not the narrow exception, because only one pers

tiff cannot blame someone else (= ) for the consequences of her own criminal conduct. Cf. Feld & Sons, Inc. v. Pechner, Dorfman, Wolfe, Rounick and Cabot, 458 A.2d 545, 552 (Pa. Super. Ct, 1983) (holding that law-firm clients could not recover damages flowing from their own criminal acts, even though

(Fla. 1950) (observing that 'instances of conspiracy which is in itself an independent tort are rare and should be added to with caution' (quoting Fleming v. Dane, 22 N.E.2d 609, 611, (Mass. 1939))) (emphasis added). Plainly, this case involves the general rule, not the narrow exception, because only one pers

laintiff cannot blame someone else for the consequences of her own criminal conduct. Cf. Feld & Sons, Inc. v. Pechner, Dorfman, Wolffe, Rounick and Cabot, 458 A.2d 545, 552 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1983) (holding that law-firm clients could not recover damages flowing from their own criminal acts, even though

(Fla. 1950) (observing that "'instances of conspiracy which is in itself an independent tort are rare and should be added to with caution" (quoting Fleming v. Dane, 22 N.E.2d 609, 611, (Mass. 1939))) (emphasis added). Plainly, this case involves the general rule, not the narrow exception, because only one pers

tiff cannot blame someone else ( ) for the consequences of her own criminal conduct. Cf. Feld & Sons, Inc. v. Pechner, Dorfman, Wolffe, Rounick and Cabot, 458 A.2d 545, 552 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1983) (holding that law-firm clients could not recover damages flowing from their own criminal acts, even though

(Fla. 1950) (observing that -'instances of conspiracy which is in itself an independent tort are rare and should be added to with caution' (quoting Fleming v. Dane, 22 N.E.2d 609, 611, (Mails. 1939))) (emphasis added). Plainly, th;s Cat ;nvulvcs dic genera-rule, not the narrow exception, because only one perso

aintiff cannot blame someone else (= for the consequences of her own criminal conduct. CI Feld & Sons, Inc. v. Pechner, Dorfman, Wolfe, Rounick and Cabot, 458 A.2d 545, 552 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1983) (holding that law-firm clients could not recover damages flowing from their own criminal acts, even though

(Fla. 1950) (observing that "'instances of conspiracy which is in itself an independent tort are rare and should be added to with caution" (quoting Fleming v. Dane, 22 N.E.2d _609,41-1-,-(Mass,1939-M-(emphaffis-added). Plainlyithis-ctbe involvcb die geucral rule, not the narrow exception, because only one pers