Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
152 results for '* judge:"Judge Hodge"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2022-11-28
Practice Area: Communications and Media
Industry: Food and Beverage | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Hodge
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 10027 of 2021, C.A.
Plaintiffs' complaint sufficiently established the defamatory nature of statements in defendants' newspaper and their application to plaintiffs, while those statements were not entitled to "fair comment" privilege because they read as reported fact and purported to delineate recent events. The court overruled in part defendants' preliminary objections.
Publication Date: 2022-11-21
Practice Area: Insurance Law
Industry: Insurance
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Hodge
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 10246 of 2022, C.A.
Court denied defendant insurance company's motion to dismiss plaintiff's bad faith insurance claim. Defendant argued that they were not obligated to provide coverage because plaintiff's previous policy contained a provision reducing coverage which had transferred to her new policy. The court disagreed, holding that 75 Pa.C.S.A. §1731 requires that insurance companies receive a signed resignation of underinsured/uninsured motor vehicle coverage and defendant's argument that the old coverage limits transferred must fail.
Publication Date: 2022-11-07
Practice Area: Land Use and Planning
Industry: State and Local Government
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Hodge
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 10470 of 2021, C.A.
Plaintiffs' Declaratory Judgment Act complaint, which asserted that defendants were interfering with their use of an alley by calling police and seeking measures from the local township, alleged facts sufficient to indicate imminent and inevitable litigation as well as a direct, substantial and present interest. The court overruled in part defendants' preliminary objections.
Publication Date: 2022-11-07
Practice Area: Real Estate
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Hodge
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 10473 OF 2020, C.A.
Court granted injunctive relief on the grounds that plaintiffs had properly established that the deed in question intended plaintiffs to have access to a 50-foot strip of land. Outside of the deed, the court further granted injunctive relief on the grounds that plaintiffs had established the need for an easement by necessity.
Publication Date: 2022-10-31
Practice Area: Real Estate
Industry: Real Estate
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Hodge
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 70066 of 2022, MD
Plaintiff failed to establish the first factor required for the maintenance of a lis pendens upon real property, that title to the property was at issue in this litigation; therefore, the court was not required to address the second relevant factor, a balancing of the equities involved. The court denied plaintiff's motion for lis pendens.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors:
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2022-10-24
Practice Area: Land Use and Planning
Industry: Mining and Resources | State and Local Government
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Hodge
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 70122 of 2021, MD
The court overturned the decision of a borough to deny a permit request for conditional non-coal surface mining finding the zoning board failed to meet their burden of proof to demonstrate that the permit sought was not consistent with the promotion of the public's health, safety, and public welfare.
Publication Date: 2022-10-17
Practice Area: Trusts and Estates
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Hodge
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 77 of 2012, O.C.
The court granted a motion for reconsideration in part and denied it in part finding that the court had properly considered all relevant facts when appointing an attorney as a co-guardian of an incapacitated person's estate and person. The court noted that because petitioner raised no new facts, a motion for reconsideration was not the proper vehicle to simply present an argument for the second time.
Publication Date: 2022-10-03
Practice Area: Discovery
Industry: Real Estate | State and Local Government
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Hodge
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 10619 OF 2021
Plaintiff failed to produce probable cause that his discovery requests would advance his ability to bring any claims against defendants upon which relief could be granted as he lacked standing to bring claims on behalf of a trust and defendants were immune from his proposed claims under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act. The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss.
Publication Date: 2022-09-19
Practice Area: Legal Ethics and Attorney Discipline
Industry: Insurance | Legal Services
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Hodge
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 10727 of 2021, C.A.
Counsel was disqualified from representing the defendants and cross-complainants in these consolidated cases since his current representation in this matter was adverse to the relationship he had established with plaintiff, a former client, through whom he had acquired confidential information relevant to this suit. The court granted a motion to disqualify counsel.
Publication Date: 2022-09-12
Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
Industry: State and Local Government
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Hodge
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0988
Court denied preliminary objections to a plaintiff's tort complaint arising out of defendant city's refusal to pay plaintiff as a surviving spouse under her ex-husband's pension plan. The court denied the objections finding that while the current police pension plan provided that the benefits should be paid towards a surviving spouse, the plan that was approved by the city and implemented for more than twenty years allowed plaintiff to be paid pursuant to a Domestic Relations Order which was in effect as a result of a divorce settleme
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read