• In re: Davis

    Publication Date: 2023-09-04
    Practice Area: Court Administration
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Per Curiam
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 887 WDA 2022

    Appellant challenged the trial court's decision finding her guilty of direct criminal contempt and sentencing her to incarceration and financial penalties. The court affirmed, reasoning that appellant, as Clerk of the Courts of Washington County, engaged in direct contempt of the trial court by refusing to comply with its order regarding transfer of juvenile case records, resisting deputies, and engaging in disruptive misbehavior outside the courtroom.

  • United States v. Shaknitz

    Publication Date: 2023-08-21
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Per Curiam
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 23-1257

    Incarcerated appellant challenged district court's order limiting his contact with his five-year old son to telephone only and court found district court erred because U.S. v. Diaz, 66 F.4th 435, held a sentencing court lacked the inherent authority to impose a no-contact order during a defendant's term of incarceration but a court could recommend that the Bureau of Prisons impose such an order. Motion granted.

  • Moon Twp. v. Papa

    Publication Date: 2023-05-01
    Practice Area: Constitutional Law
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Per Curiam
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 234 C.D. 2022

    Trial court erred in not granting township's motion for summary judgment in appellee's action asserting malicious abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false arrest, malicious prosecution and deprivation of her constitutional free speech rights after she was arrested at an Earth Day event and court found township and its employees were governmentally and officially immune from suit and appellee's claims were also a collateral attack on the outcome of valid criminal proceedings. Reversed.

  • Bianchi & B&G Machine, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2023-02-28
    Practice Area: Labor Law
    Industry: Manufacturing
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Per Curiam
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-2172

    Age discrimination claim was properly dismissed for lack of clear direct evidence of discrimination and failure to prove that plaintiff was replaced by a younger employee.

  • Robert W. Mauthe M.D. PC v. Millennium Health LLC

    Publication Date: 2023-02-13
    Practice Area: Consumer Protection
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Per Curiam
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 20-2265

    Facsimile offering free seminar with no mention of goods, property, or services for sale or pricing for goods and services for sale did not constitute an unsolicited advertisement prohibited by the TCPA. Order of the district court affirmed.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Georgia Construction Law Handbook 2024

    Authors: T. BART GARY, JAKE CARROLL

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Monroe v. CBH2O

    Publication Date: 2022-12-12
    Practice Area: Personal Injury
    Industry: Entertainment and Leisure
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Per Curiam
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 1862 EDA 2019

    Plaintiff appealed the grant of summary judgment to defendant in her personal injury action and court found plaintiff sufficiently pled the state of mind of recklessness to defeat defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings and evidence of record created genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment. Reversed.

  • United States v. Cannon

    Publication Date: 2022-07-04
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Per Curiam
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-0742

    District court properly revoked appellant's bond for his use of medical marijuana because it violated the conditions of his release that required him to not violate any federal, state or local law while on release and marijuana was a schedule 1 controlled substance under the controlled substances act and was illegal "for any purpose." Affirmed.

  • Perkins v. Proctor & Gamble Pharm. Co.

    Publication Date: 2022-05-31
    Practice Area: Products Liability
    Industry: Pharmaceuticals
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Per Curiam
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: D69836

    Products liability lawsuit dismissed where cited federal statutes failed to give rise to a private cause of action and plaintiff, a non-attorney, could not represent the heirs of the decedent.

  • In re: Paragon Offshore PLC

    Publication Date: 2022-04-26
    Practice Area: Bankruptcy
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Per Curiam
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: D69793

    Shareholder's appeal of Chapter 11 plan denied where equity holders lacked standing where debtor would not have any assets for equity holders after satisfying claims of its creditors.

  • Med. Tech. Assoc. II Inc. v. Rausch

    Publication Date: 2022-04-04
    Practice Area: Legal Ethics and Attorney Discipline
    Industry: Legal Services | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: Per Curiam
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-0356

    Defendants' moved to disqualify law firm from representing plaintiffs in intellectual property matter, alleging firm had previously represented defendants, and court found defendants failed to document that they were ever firm's clients, there were no facts to show an "implied attorney relationship" between firm and individual defendant and defendants had no right to force company to give up representation by firm because individual defendant had been an officer of company. Motion denied.