Filter This View

  • Rivera v. Wang

    Publication Date: 2019-12-30
    Practice Area: Motor Vehicle Torts
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Tsai
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-1471

    Where the parties presented the jury with two versions of how a motor vehicle accident occurred and the jury was left to assess the credibility of the parties and weight of the evidence, it was reasonable for the jury to discount plaintiff's hypothesis and find that defendant took reasonably careful action to avoid contact before the parties collided. The trial court recommended affirmance of its order denying plaintiffs post-trial relief.

  • Steltz v. Meyers

    Publication Date: 2019-07-01
    Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Tsai
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0350

    The court ordered a new trial, because defense counsel's question of a witness was so prejudicial that no instruction to the jury could have cured it.

  • In re: Nomination Petition of Willie Singletary

    Publication Date: 2019-05-20
    Practice Area: Election and Political Law
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Tsai
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0469

    A candidate's prior conviction for making false statements to federal authorities constituted an "infamous crime" which precluded him from running for local office. The court ordered his name removed from the ballot.

  • Lawson v. Albert Einstein Medical Center

    Publication Date: 2019-05-20
    Practice Area: Personal Injury
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Tsai
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0505

    The trial court opined that it did not err in fashioning a jury instruction to explain the law on the affirmative defense of "citizen's arrest" and properly charged the jury that a citizen can arrest another who has committed either a felony or breach of the peace in the presence of the arrestor. The court recommended affirmance of its order denying plaintiffs post-trial relief.