American rule in Pennsylvania

2018Merlino v. Delaware Cty., 728 A.2d 949, 951 (Pa. 1999) (“This Court has consistently followed the general, American rule that there can be no recovery of attorneys’ fees from an adverse party, absent an express statutory authorization, a clear agreement by the parties or some other established exception.”).

2007We agree. ¶ 25 “[Pennsylvania] has consistently followed the general, American rule that there can be no recovery of attorneys’ fees from an adverse party, absent an express statutory authorization, a clear agreement by the parties or some other established exception.” Merlino v. Delaware County, 556 Pa. 422, 425 , 728 A.2d 949, 951 (1999).

2015“It is a prized American privilege to speak one's mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions.” Sullivan, supra at 269 (citation omitted).

2015Due to our “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, . . . . it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” Id. at 270 (emphasis added).

2015See Herd, 619 Pa. at 450 , 64 A.3d at 1066 (citing Merlino v. Delaware Cnty., 556 Pa. 422, 425 , 728 A.2d 949, 951 (1999)).

2014Our Supreme Court emphasized the “general American rule that there can be no recovery of attorney’s fees from an adverse party, absent an express statutory authorization, a clear agreement by the parties, or some other established exception.” Herd, supra at 1066 (citation omitted).

1999Chatham Communications, Inc. v. General Press Corp., 463 Pa. 292, 300-01 , 344 A.2d 837, 842 (1975)(quoting Corace v. Balint, 418 Pa. 262, 271 , 210 A.2d 882, 886-87 (1965)); In re Kling, 433 Pa. 118, 121 , 249 A.2d 552, 554 (1969); Shapiro v. Magaziner, 418 Pa. 278, 280 , 210 A.2d 890, 892 (1965).

1999Chatham Communications, Inc. v. General Press Corp., 463 Pa. 292, 300-01 , 344 A.2d 837, 842 (1975)(quoting Corace v. Balint, 418 Pa. 262, 271 , 210 A.2d 882, 886-87 (1965)); In re Kling, 433 Pa. 118, 121 , 249 A.2d 552, 554 (1969); Shapiro v. Magaziner, 418 Pa. 278, 280 , 210 A.2d 890, 892 (1965).

1999Chatham Communications, Inc. v. General Press Corp., 463 Pa. 292, 300-01 , 344 A.2d 837, 842 (1975)(quoting Corace v. Balint, 418 Pa. 262, 271 , 210 A.2d 882, 886-87 (1965)); In re Kling, 433 Pa. 118, 121 , 249 A.2d 552, 554 (1969); Shapiro v. Magaziner, 418 Pa. 278, 280 , 210 A.2d 890, 892 (1965).

1999Chatham Communications, Inc. v. General Press Corp., 463 Pa. 292, 300-01 , 344 A.2d 837, 842 (1975)(quoting Corace v. Balint, 418 Pa. 262, 271 , 210 A.2d 882, 886-87 (1965)); In re Kling, 433 Pa. 118, 121 , 249 A.2d 552, 554 (1969); Shapiro v. Magaziner, 418 Pa. 278, 280 , 210 A.2d 890, 892 (1965).

2016Moreover, “[t]he applicant for counsel fees has the burden of proving his/her entitlement thereto.” Id. *** It is the American rule that parties to adversary litigation are required to pay their own counsel fees.

2016Moreover, “[t]he applicant for counsel fees has the burden of proving his/her entitlement thereto.” Id. *** It is the American rule that parties to adversary litigation are required to pay their own counsel fees.

1984Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 666 , 69 L.Ed. 1138, 1145 , 45 S. Ct. 625 (1925); Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 160 , 84 L.Ed. 155, 164 , 60 S. Ct. 146 (1939). “[I]t is a prized American privilege to speak one’s mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions.” Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 270 , 86 L.Ed. 192, 207 , 62 S. Ct. 190 , 159 A.L.R. 1346 (1941).

1984Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 666 , 69 L.Ed. 1138, 1145 , 45 S. Ct. 625 (1925); Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 160 , 84 L.Ed. 155, 164 , 60 S. Ct. 146 (1939). “[I]t is a prized American privilege to speak one’s mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions.” Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 270 , 86 L.Ed. 192, 207 , 62 S. Ct. 190 , 159 A.L.R. 1346 (1941).

2026Township of Lower Merion v. QED, Inc., 762 A.2d 779, 781 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000). “[A]n abuse of discretion may not be found merely because the appellate court might have reached a different conclusion, but requires a showing of manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill- will, or such lack of support as to be clearly erroneous.” Wagner v. Pennsylvania Capitol Police Department, 132 A.3d 1051, 1057 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (quoting Paden v. Baker Concrete Construction, Inc., 658 A.2d 341, 343 (Pa. 1995)).

2026Township of Lower Merion v. QED, Inc., 762 A.2d 779, 781 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000). “[A]n abuse of discretion may not be found merely because the appellate court might have reached a different conclusion, but requires a showing of manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill- will, or such lack of support as to be clearly erroneous.” Wagner v. Pennsylvania Capitol Police Department, 132 A.3d 1051, 1057 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (quoting Paden v. Baker Concrete Construction, Inc., 658 A.2d 341, 343 (Pa. 1995)).

2026Township of Lower Merion v. QED, Inc., 762 A.2d 779, 781 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000). “[A]n abuse of discretion may not be found merely because the appellate court might have reached a different conclusion, but requires a showing of manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill- will, or such lack of support as to be clearly erroneous.” Wagner v. Pennsylvania Capitol Police Department, 132 A.3d 1051, 1057 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (quoting Paden v. Baker Concrete Construction, Inc., 658 A.2d 341, 343 (Pa. 1995)).

2026Township of Lower Merion v. QED, Inc., 762 A.2d 779, 781 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000). “[A]n abuse of discretion may not be found merely because the appellate court might have reached a different conclusion, but requires a showing of manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill- will, or such lack of support as to be clearly erroneous.” Wagner v. Pennsylvania Capitol Police Department, 132 A.3d 1051, 1057 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (quoting Paden v. Baker Concrete Construction, Inc., 658 A.2d 341, 343 (Pa. 1995)).

2026Township of Lower Merion v. QED, Inc., 762 A.2d 779, 781 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000). “[A]n abuse of discretion may not be found merely because the appellate court might have reached a different conclusion, but requires a showing of manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill- will, or such lack of support as to be clearly erroneous.” Wagner v. Pennsylvania Capitol Police Department, 132 A.3d 1051, 1057 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (quoting Paden v. Baker Concrete Construction, Inc., 658 A.2d 341, 343 (Pa. 1995)).

2026Township of Lower Merion v. QED, Inc., 762 A.2d 779, 781 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000). “[A]n abuse of discretion may not be found merely because the appellate court might have reached a different conclusion, but requires a showing of manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill- will, or such lack of support as to be clearly erroneous.” Wagner v. Pennsylvania Capitol Police Department, 132 A.3d 1051, 1057 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (quoting Paden v. Baker Concrete Construction, Inc., 658 A.2d 341, 343 (Pa. 1995)).

2025Ctr., 257 A.3d 26, 42 (Pa. Super. 2020).

2017McMullen v. Kutz, 985 A.2d 769, 612-13 (Pa. 2009) (“The general rule within this Commonwealth is that each side is responsible for the payment of its own costs and counsel fees absent bad faith or vexatious conduct. . . .

2017McMullen v. Kutz, 985 A.2d 769, 612-13 (Pa. 2009) (“The general rule within this Commonwealth is that each side is responsible for the payment of its own costs and counsel fees absent bad faith or vexatious conduct. . . .

2016See Reyno, 454 U.S. at 259 , 102 S.Ct. 252 .

2016See Reyno, 454 U.S. at 259 , 102 S.Ct. 252 .

2015“The so-called ‘American rule’ provides that parties to litigation are responsible for their own counsel fees ‘unless otherwise provided by statutory authority, agreement of the parties, or some other recognized exception.’” Mrozek v. Eiter, 805 A.2d 535, 538 (Pa. Super. 2002) (citation omitted).

2015See Price v. Stevedoring Servs. of Am., Inc. 697 F.3d 820, 842 (9th Cir.2012) (many courts have begun to move away from the “general American rule” of awarding simple rather than compound interest).

2015See Price v. Stevedoring Servs. of Am., Inc. 697 F.3d 820, 842 (9th Cir.2012) (many courts have begun to move away from the “general American rule” of awarding simple rather than compound interest).

2015See Herd, 619 Pa. at 450 , 64 A.3d at 1066 (citing Merlino v. Delaware Cnty., 556 Pa. 422, 425 , 728 A.2d 949, 951 (1999)).

2015See Herd, 619 Pa. at 450 , 64 A.3d at 1066 (citing Merlino v. Delaware Cnty., 556 Pa. 422, 425 , 728 A.2d 949, 951 (1999)).

2015See Gillingham v. Consol Energy, Inc., 51 A.3d 841, 861 (Pa. Super. 2012) (observing that the fact-finder is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence and to determine the credibility of the witnesses). -9- J-A23011-15 Moreover, we find no merit to American’s claim that the trial court had improperly implied an automatic forfeiture provision into the Lease.

2012Accord Martin v. Ohio, 480 U.S. 228, 235 , 107 S.Ct. 1098 , 94 L.Ed.2d 267 (1987) ("the common-law rule was that affirmative defenses, including self-defense, were matters for the defendant to prove. ‘This was the rule when the Fifth Amendment was adopted, and it was the American rule when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.' ") (quoting Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, 202 , 97 S.Ct. 2319 , 53 L.Ed.2d 281 (1977)). .

2012Accord Martin v. Ohio, 480 U.S. 228, 235 , 107 S.Ct. 1098 , 94 L.Ed.2d 267 (1987) ("the common-law rule was that affirmative defenses, including self-defense, were matters for the defendant to prove. ‘This was the rule when the Fifth Amendment was adopted, and it was the American rule when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.' ") (quoting Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, 202 , 97 S.Ct. 2319 , 53 L.Ed.2d 281 (1977)). .

2012Accord Martin v. Ohio, 480 U.S. 228, 235 , 107 S.Ct. 1098 , 94 L.Ed.2d 267 (1987) ("the common-law rule was that affirmative defenses, including self-defense, were matters for the defendant to prove. ‘This was the rule when the Fifth Amendment was adopted, and it was the American rule when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.' ") (quoting Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, 202 , 97 S.Ct. 2319 , 53 L.Ed.2d 281 (1977)). .

2012Accord Martin v. Ohio, 480 U.S. 228, 235 , 107 S.Ct. 1098 , 94 L.Ed.2d 267 (1987) ("the common-law rule was that affirmative defenses, including self-defense, were matters for the defendant to prove. ‘This was the rule when the Fifth Amendment was adopted, and it was the American rule when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.' ") (quoting Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, 202 , 97 S.Ct. 2319 , 53 L.Ed.2d 281 (1977)). .

2007In cases where parties to a contract agree to shift fees, “provisions for the payment of ‘costs of collection’ have often been held to include reasonable attorney’s fees in the event that it is necessary to institute legal action to collect.” Wrenfield Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. DeYoung, 410 Pa.Super. 621 , 600 A.2d 960, 964 (1991).

2007In cases where parties to a contract agree to shift fees, “provisions for the payment of ‘costs of collection’ have often been held to include reasonable attorney’s fees in the event that it is necessary to institute legal action to collect.” Wrenfield Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. DeYoung, 410 Pa.Super. 621 , 600 A.2d 960, 964 (1991).

2002Id. ¶ 6 The so-called “American rule” provides that parties to litigation are responsible for their own counsel fees “unless otherwise provided by statutory authority, agreement of the parties, or some other recognized exception.” Hart v. O’Malley, 781 A.2d 1211, 1216 (Pa.Super.2001); see also Merlino v. Delaware County, 556 Pa. 422, 425 , 728 A.2d 949, 951 (1999).