• Palmer v. Palena

    Publication Date: 2023-09-04
    Practice Area: Real Estate
    Industry: Real Estate
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Chester County
    Judge: Judge Binder
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 2021-02843-RC

    The court issued its decision after a bench trial in a real property boundary dispute between plaintiff and defendant. The court held that plaintiff held exclusive title and ownership interest in a 21 square foot disputed area between the parties' residential lots pursuant to the consentable line doctrine.

  • Jacoby v. Hankin Enter., Ltd.

    Publication Date: 2023-08-21
    Practice Area: Damages
    Industry: Real Estate
    Court: Commonwealth Court, Chester County
    Judge: Judge Binder
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 2020-08163-TT

    Defendants moved to transfer plaintiff's suit to compulsory arbitration on the ground that the amount in controversy was not greater than $50,000. The court denied defendants' motion.

  • Drake v. Schwartz

    Publication Date: 2023-08-21
    Practice Area: Real Estate
    Industry: Health Care | Hospitality and Lodging
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Chester County
    Judge: Judge Binder
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 2019-07345-PL

    Defendants, as owners and landlords of real property leased to a nursing home tenant, sought summary judgment in plaintiffs' action for nursing home negligence. The court granted defendants' motion, rejecting plaintiffs' argument that the "dangerous condition" that caused a patient's injuries was a condition of severe understaffing due to financial hardships imposed on the tenant under its lease agreement.

  • Rosato v. Bookstaber

    Publication Date: 2023-01-02
    Practice Area: Administrative Law
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Chester County
    Judge: Judge Binder
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 2018-12580-PF

    The court held that the sheriff's office should bear the costs of running a clearance check and/or transporting a firearm that was to be retrieved by the defendant. Although the parties initially disagreed as to who should bear the costs, the court reviewed the plain language of 23 Pa.C.S.§6801, finding that the sheriff's office was required to reimburse the costs of transport and/or associated administrative fees.

  • Wolfington v. Bartkowski

    Publication Date: 2022-10-10
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities
    Industry: Advertising
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Chester County
    Judge: Judge Binder
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 2021-05143-CT

    Court granted defendants' request for emergency injunctive relief in case arising out of a business dispute and violations of a non-compete clause within the operating agreement. Although respondents to the request attempted to distinguish the type of work the parties did, the court did not find the argument convincing finding that defendants would likely prevail in their counterclaims.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Florida Construction Defect Litigation 2025

    Authors: Gary L. Brown

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Beutler v. Gain

    Publication Date: 2022-10-03
    Practice Area: Civil Procedure
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Chester County
    Judge: Judge Binder
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 2021-03084-TT

    The court refused to dismiss the defendant township from this suit under Pa.R.Civ.P. 1036, i.e., dismissal upon affidavit of noninvolvement, because the rule did not apply in this personal injury case and the Township failed to cite any other Act of Assembly providing for dismissal from a motor vehicle accident case upon an affidavit of noninvolvement. The court denied a motion for reconsideration.

  • Trautmann v. CBS Broadcasting Inc.

    Publication Date: 2022-05-02
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry: State and Local Government | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Chester County
    Judge: Judge Binder
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-0374

    The court held that Criminal History Records Information Act created both a confidentiality prohibition on disclosure of body cam footage and a privilege for protected materials which called for prohibiting the district attorney from disclosing the footage. Motion to quash granted.

  • Adams v. Barrett

    Publication Date: 2022-01-31
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Chester County
    Judge: Judge Binder
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-0019

    The court transferred to this custody case to Bucks County, identified as the more appropriate county based on the parties' residence and other factors set forth in 23 Pa.C.S. §5427(b), as this case had languished in Chester County without resolution. The court granted father's petition to transfer venue.

  • Sellers v. Expert Smart Home, LLC

    Publication Date: 2021-10-11
    Practice Area: Business Torts
    Industry: Construction | E-Commerce | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Chester County
    Judge: Judge Binder
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 21-1031

    The defendant company could not succeed on a trade libel/injurious falsehood counterclaim against plaintiff based on his publication of negative online reviews where the company failed to offer any witness or other evidence to support a claim of reputational loss due to those reviews. The court granted plaintiff relief on defendant's libel counterclaim.

  • Murphy v. Murphy

    Publication Date: 2021-10-04
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Chester County
    Judge: Judge Binder
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 21-1030

    Plaintiff failed to present clear and convincing evidence that he and defendant executed a prenuptial agreement. Petition denied.