Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
522 results for '* topic:"Civil Procedure"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2022-10-31
Practice Area: Civil Procedure
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Bucks County
Judge: Judge Bateman
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 2016-05367
Defendant was entitled to a substantial award of attorney fees under the fee shifting provision of 42 Pa.C.S. §2503 based on dilatory, obdurate or vexatious conduct where the pro se plaintiff engaged in a lengthy campaign of filing harassing discovery requests for irrelevant information and repeatedly acting in bad faith by objecting to everything. The court recommended affirmance.
Publication Date: 2022-10-24
Practice Area: Civil Procedure
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
Judge: District Judge Kenney
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-1085
Defendant, alleged company director, moved to dismiss or transfer plaintiff's privacy action based on telemarketing phone calls to Missouri and court found the private and public factors weighed in favor of transfer. Motion granted.
Publication Date: 2022-10-17
Practice Area: Civil Procedure
Industry: Health Care | Legal Services
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
Judge: District Judge Marston
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-4825-KSM
Request for supplemental counsel fees and pre-judgment interest denied where filed after the deadlines set by the rules of civil procedure and plaintiff failed to allege facts demonstrating excusable neglect for the delay or reasonable diligence. Plaintiff's supplemental fee petition denied in part and granted in part.
Publication Date: 2022-10-17
Practice Area: Civil Procedure
Industry: State and Local Government
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Carbon County
Judge: Judge Serfass
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 19 - 0426
Defendant failed to preserve any issues for appellate review where he filed a direct appeal from the trial court's verdict against him rather than filing any post-trial motions in accordance with Pa.R.Civ.P. 227.1(c). The court recommended affirmance.
Publication Date: 2022-10-10
Practice Area: Civil Procedure
Industry: E-Commerce | Technology Media and Telecom | Transportation
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lycoming County
Judge: Judge Linhardt
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-00041
The court rejected petitioner's claim that corporate records stored electronically and accessible in Pennsylvania were subject to discovery under 15 Pa. C.S. §1508 since the documents' theoretic accessibility within the state was insufficient to put those documents within the court's jurisdiction and render them "located within Pennsylvania." The court denied petitioner's petition to compel.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Joseph S. Britton
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
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.
Publication Date: 2022-10-03
Practice Area: Civil Procedure
Industry: Energy
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Circuit Judge Jordan
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-2080
The Third Circuit joined its sister circuits in strictly construing the waiver exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act as requiring strong evidence that a foreign state intended to waive its sovereign immunity, and concluded that defendants, including the King of Saudi Arabia, had not waived such immunity. The appellate court vacated a dismissal order with prejudice for entry of a dismissal order without prejudice.
Publication Date: 2022-09-26
Practice Area: Civil Procedure
Industry: Retail
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Shreeves-Johns
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 2269 EDA 2021
Court denied a motion for reconsideration/appeal after a complaint filed in Pennsylvania was dismissed following a forum non conveniens motion arguing the wrongful death action should be litigated in Delaware. The court held that the motion was properly granted due to the fact that the product was purchased in Delaware, where defendant-appellee was also incorporated. Therefore, the court held that there was greater access to evidence and witness in Delaware and that Delaware State Courts were better situated to apply their own laws.
Publication Date: 2022-09-26
Practice Area: Civil Procedure
Industry: Legal Services | State and Local Government
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County
Judge: Judge Nealon
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22 CV 2753
The court declined to hold a hearing on plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction where defendant had executed a stipulation granting defendant the exact relief he sought, i.e., consent to a stipulation enjoining defendant and her colleagues from accessing the emails and stored data of the Lackawanna County District Attorney's Office. The court issued upon plaintiff a rule to show cause.
Publication Date: 2022-09-26
Practice Area: Civil Procedure
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County
Judge: Judge Nealon
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21 CV 2465
The court granted defendants' request to transfer venue on forum non-conveniens grounds due to the fact that the accident occurred in the requested venue and the defendant and defendants' employees/witnesses are in the requested venue. The court noted that defendants satisfied their burden of demonstrating that the initial venue was oppressive and the venue defendants sought provided better access to material witnesses and other sources of proof.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read