Filter This View

  • Perez v. Mathis et al

    Publication Date: 2018-10-02
    Practice Area: Legal Malpractice
    Industry: Legal Services
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Monroe County
    Judge: Judge Williamson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1118

    The court allowed plaintiff to present a claim for lost punitive damages in this legal malpractice suit where he was successful in an underlying lawsuit with substitute counsel and may have recovered on a bad faith claim in that suit but for counsel's alleged negligence in withdrawing it. The court denied defendants' preliminary objections.

  • Grezak v. Ropes & Gray LLP

    Publication Date: 2018-09-25
    Practice Area: Civil Procedure | Government | Litigation
    Industry: Legal Services
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Middle
    Judge: District Judge Mannion
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1148

    Plaintiff objected to the magistrate judge's report in response to defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiff's pro se action asserting defendants conducted secret ex parte communication with a New York state judge, tampered with evidence, conspired to kidnap plaintiff, violated her fourth amendment privacy rights and infringed her familial association rights in violation of the fourteenth amendment but the court was unable to ascertain any legally sufficient objections to the magistrate's judge's recommendations that defendants' motion

  • Clemens v. N.Y. Central Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

    Publication Date: 2018-09-25
    Practice Area: Attorney Compensation | Fee Disputes | Insurance Litigation
    Industry: Insurance | Legal Services
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Circuit Judge Greenaway
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1130

    In this precedential case, the appellate court concluded that district courts have the discretion to deny a fee request in its entirety where the request amount is "outrageously excessive" under the circumstances; thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs $950,000 in fees on their $100,000 in punitive damages award. The appellate court affirmed an order denying plaintiffs' request for attorney fees.

  • Commonwealth v. Durrett King

    Publication Date: 2018-09-18
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
    Industry: Legal Services
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Murray
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1072

    Defendant raised a meritorious ineffective assistance of counsel claim where counsel failed to seek a jury instruction on a defense to the crime of fleeing or attempt to elude police relating to unmarked police cars where the police car involved, and driven by plain clothes detectives, did not display any identifying decals or graphics. The appellate court vacated an order denying defendant Post Conviction Relief Act relief and remanded for a hearing.

  • Meskin v. Glassman

    Publication Date: 2018-09-18
    Practice Area: Attorney Rates and Arrangements
    Industry: Legal Services
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Kennedy
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1063

    Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for relief against their prior attorneys, because their vague allegations and expressions of opinion were not adequate to support any of their causes of action.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Allegheny County and Westmoreland County Court Rules 2024

    Authors:

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Patel v. Vaccaro

    Publication Date: 2018-08-07
    Practice Area: Legal Malpractice
    Industry: Legal Services
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge DuBois
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0930

    Court entered judgment for compensatory and punitive damages in plaintiff's legal malpractice action because defendants failed to respond or take any action in the underlying case for almost two years, their neglect led to a grant of summary judgment against plaintiff and their neglect of and lack of participation in the underlying action demonstrated a reckless indifference to the rights of others. Judgment for plaintiff.

  • In re Escheatment of Matured, Unredeemed, and Unclaimed U.S. Savings Bonds

    Publication Date: 2018-07-17
    Practice Area: Civil Procedure
    Industry:
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Covey
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0835

    The notice proposed by treasurer as part of an escheatment proceeding pursuant to §1301.10(b) of the fiscal code to reunite matured, unredeemed and unclaimed U.S savings bonds with their owners was defective because the treasurer needed to modify the notice to correct the internal inconsistencies created by rule 430(b)(1)'s application in these particular circumstances. Application denied.

  • Bonilla v. Sessions

    Publication Date: 2018-06-12
    Practice Area: Immigration Law
    Industry:
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Circuit Judge Shwartz
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0681

    Petitioner, an illegal alien, failed to demonstrate that his due process rights were violated where an immigration judge reviewed a negative reasonable fear determination without his counsel present in the absence of any regulations investing him with a right to counsel at a review hearing. The court denied an illegal alien's petition for review of a negative reasonable fear determination

  • Knopick v. Boyle

    Publication Date: 2018-06-12
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry: Legal Services
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Gantman
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0667

    Trial court properly ordered appellant to disclose an email a non-party sent to himself on his personal email because appellant lacked standing to assert the ordered disclosure was privileged since the attorney-client privilege belonged to the non-party, not to appellant. Affirmed.

  • Bidwell v. Bidwell

    Publication Date: 2018-06-12
    Practice Area: Civil Procedure | Family Law
    Industry: Legal Services
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Monroe County
    Judge: Judge Sibum
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0672

    Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 1.11(c) did not disqualify wife's attorney in this divorce action, though counsel was involved in the prosecution of the defendant husband during her prior work for a district attorney's office, because the two matters were not substantially similar. The court denied defendant's motion to disqualify plaintiff's attorney.