Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
666 results for '* court:"Courts of Common Pleas Philadelphia County"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2022-12-26
Practice Area: Insurance Litigation
Industry: Insurance | Real Estate
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Djerassi
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 02208
The court granted plaintiffs' motions for declaratory judgment finding that they had no duty to defend and indemnify defendant company on the grounds that the event fell within the policy exclusions. Although defendant argued that the cause of the event had not yet been determined, and therefore, it was unclear whether the policy exclusion applied, the court disagreed and relied on the plain language of the operative policy.
Publication Date: 2022-12-19
Practice Area: Civil Appeals
Industry: Legal Services
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Cunningham
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 210900716
Court affirmed decision dismissing appellant's complaint for failure to prosecute on the grounds that appellant repeatedly failed to respond to appellees' preliminary objections, filed multiple amended complaints, and failed to effectuate proper service of any of the complaints on appellees.
Publication Date: 2022-12-19
Practice Area: Personal Injury
Industry: Manufacturing
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Shreeves-Johns
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 02048
Court affirmed a decision granting a motion to transfer venue under Pa.R.C.P. 1006(d)(1) on the grounds that the former venue was oppressive to several of the witnesses who did not reside within the county and would have to travel several hours for depositions, trials, etc. The court further rejected appellant's arguments that the court did not allow the parties to engage in enough discovery related to the issue of venue selection finding that appellants were allowed to submit several affidavits to the court regarding venue selection.
Publication Date: 2022-12-12
Practice Area: Personal Injury
Industry: State and Local Government
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Younge
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 00514
Plaintiff could not sustain her personal injury action against defendant, a commonwealth agency, where she failed to meet her burden on causation and failed to demonstrate that defendant negligently maintained the highway where she fell off her bicycle by allowing a pothole or dangerous condition to exist. The trial court recommended affirmance.
Publication Date: 2022-12-05
Practice Area: Personal Injury
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Hill
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 06965
Court denied plaintiff's cross-appeal for delay damages on the basis that plaintiff failed to produce any evidence of how they arrived at their delay damages calculation. The court further noted that plaintiff failed to identify any delays which were attributable to defendant's conduct but instead found that the lengthy delay in the pre-trial history of the case was partially plaintiff's fault because plaintiff had failed to adhere to several discovery timelines.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors:
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2022-12-05
Practice Area: Criminal Law
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Schulman
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 190802434
Pursuant to federal case guidance, plaintiff was not entitled to a new trial based on an allegedly erroneous jury instruction as the court correctly charged the jury that the existence of probable cause as to one criminal charge barred plaintiff's malicious prosecution claim entirely. The court recommended affirmance.
Publication Date: 2022-12-05
Practice Area: Civil Appeals
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Schulman
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 1494 EDA 2022
Court requested that the superior court affirm the court's previous order denying appellant's request for the court to open the judgment of non prosequi. The court found that appellant's request to reopen was not based on a meritorious claim because her initial complaint had been filed beyond the applicable statute of limitations. The court further found that appellant failed to offer a reasonable excuse as to why she failed to appear at trial.
Publication Date: 2022-11-28
Practice Area: Legal Malpractice
Industry: Agriculture | Distribution and Wholesale | Legal Services
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Padilla
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 02211
Plaintiffs' malpractice claims were time-barred since they first knew or should have known that they had been injured by allegedly erroneous advice back in 2004, when they executed a consent judgment in a Department of Justice investigation of business practices purportedly based on that same advice. The court granted defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Publication Date: 2022-11-28
Practice Area: Evidence
Industry: Health Care
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Foglietta
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 03298
The photographs documenting decedent's painful injuries while in hospital were directly relevant to plaintiff's wrongful death and survival claims, while defendant's argument regarding a discrepancy in the date of the photos went to the weight to be given such evidence at trial. The court recommended affirmance.
Publication Date: 2022-11-28
Practice Area: Civil Appeals
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Hill
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 06965
Court affirmed the trial court's ruling denying motions to preclude evidence stemming from a MRI noting that while the parties did have difficulty retrieving the MRI images from the third-party imaging company, plaintiff's medical expert received the images and included them in his expert opinion report. The court further found that the jury did not need to conclude that plaintiff had suffered "serious bodily injury" in reaching their award of economic damages.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read