Filter This View

  • Huertas v. El Bochinche Restaurante

    Publication Date: 2022-09-05
    Practice Area: Civil Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Hill
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 22-0901

    Court ruled trial court's refusal to hear a motion in limine was not prejudicial and at worst resulted in harmless error. While the court did not conduct a hearing on the motion, they did make curative orders to counsel and the jury regarding the substantive request. The court further ruled the trial court's admittance of evidence, in the form of appellant's statements, was appropriately entered under several exceptions to the hearsay rule.

  • Datts v. Little

    Publication Date: 2022-08-01
    Practice Area: Civil Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Campbell
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 22-0786

    Court denied defendant's post-verdict motions challenging the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial as well as a post-verdict order correcting the awarded damages to the plaintiff. Specifically, the court noted defendant failed to properly preserve their arguments for appeal. The court further noted the need to correct the awarded verdict was due to a clerical oversight and cited precedent allowing the court to exercise its discretion to correct the record to properly reflect the amount of the awarded verdict.

  • Coryell v. Morris

    Publication Date: 2022-08-01
    Practice Area: Personal Injury
    Industry: Food and Beverage | Hospitality and Lodging
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Foglietta
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 22-0787

    Court denied defendant's request for appeal arising out of a trial court verdict finding defendant LLC vicariously liable for damages caused by a franchisee employee. While defendant argued that a master-servant relationship did not exist, the court reviewed evidence citing to defendant's right to a significant amount of control and oversight over the employee, thus making them vicariously liable for plaintiff's injuries.

  • Schuster v. All-State Serv., LLC

    Publication Date: 2022-08-01
    Practice Area: Civil Appeals
    Industry: Construction | Real Estate
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Patrick
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 22-0785

    Court denied appeal asserting the trial court improperly granted a preliminary injunction halting the demolition of a historic property. Though appellants argued service was improper, the court reviewed the record and determined several facts demonstrating appellants received actual, proper notice of the hearing. Furthermore, although appellants argued appellees failed to show irreparable harm, the court noted the evidence presented at the hearing was sufficient to determine irreparable harm would result to the property.

  • Doster v. City of Philadelphia

    Publication Date: 2022-08-01
    Practice Area: Government
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Saltz
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 22-0784

    The court denied an emergency motion to stay the City of Philadelphia's reinstatement of an indoor mask mandate given that the Philadelphia Code specifically provides for the suspension of the Home Rule Charter's normal regulatory process in the event of public health and safety emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The court recommended affirmance.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Massachusetts Legal Ethics & Malpractice 2017

    Authors: James S. Bolan, Sara N. Holden

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Dougherty v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA

    Publication Date: 2022-07-25
    Practice Area: Insurance Law
    Industry: Insurance
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Djerassi
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 22-0758

    Court granted a request for injunctive relief where an insurance policy clearly provided advancement of defense funds in criminal proceedings. Specifically, the court noted the language of the policy was clear and a court would likely find that the defendant insurance company improperly denied the claim. Moreover, the court analyzed each of the elements required for injunctive relief and weighed the irreparable harm plaintiff would suffer by not having adequate defense against the "harm" defendant would suffer, in as much as the court

  • Ritchey v. Rutter's, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2022-06-27
    Practice Area: Civil Procedure
    Industry: Automotive | Manufacturing | Retail
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Crumlish
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 22-0660

    The court refused to transfer this case based on purported evidence of inconvenience as distance alone was an insufficient basis upon which to transfer this matter, and the moving parties' assertion that certain witness would be vital was speculative while the proposed testimony was cumulative and tangential. The court of common pleas recommended affirmance.

  • Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Fisher

    Publication Date: 2022-06-27
    Practice Area: Insurance Law
    Industry: Insurance
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Djerassi
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 22-0695

    The nominal defendant, who was injured in the course of her employment, was collaterally estopped from relitigating the issue of her employment status in this declaratory action as she successfully raised and litigated that issue in a prior action for workers' compensation benefits. The court recommended affirmance.

  • Doe v. Hand & Stone Franchise Corp.

    Publication Date: 2022-06-20
    Practice Area: Personal Injury
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Allen
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 22-0583

    Although the inquiry notice approach to statutes of limitations could be perceived as harsh as applied in this personal injury case involving a sexual assault, the court could not provide plaintiff with relief where she failed to file her suit within two years of her inquiry notice of the assault and resulting injuries. The court recommended affirmance.

  • Ericsson Prop., LLC v. Bulle Constr., LLC

    Publication Date: 2022-06-20
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
    Industry: Construction
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Foglietta
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 22-0584

    The court rejected defendant's claim that plaintiff's failure to secure a mechanical permit for a construction project caused a delay in his performance under a construction contract as the parties' "course of performance" demonstrated that defendant, as general contractor, picked up all required permits and advanced the cost for those permits. The court recommended affirmance.