Filter This View

  • Amres Corp. v. Ayzenberg

    Publication Date: 2024-04-19
    Practice Area: Expert Witnesses
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Accounting
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Bucks County
    Judge: Judge Trauger
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 2022-01224 (Consolidated)

    Certain parties appealed the court's decision allowing a certified public accountant, who served as a court-appointed forensic accounting expert in the parties' litigation, to seek payment of his expert fees within the parties' litigation rather than filing a separate action. The court requested that its decision be affirmed where the parties had clearly agreed to split the cost of the appointed expert that the parties ultimately required to value the disputed multimillion dollar assets involved in the complex commercial case.

  • Crawford v. Penn Cent. Corp.

    Publication Date: 2024-03-22
    Practice Area: Expert Witnesses
    Industry: Insurance
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Cunningham
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 210201573

    In this §1925(a) opinion, the trial court urged the Superior Court to affirm its decision to reconsider the preclusion of the plaintiff's expert witness and removing the nonsuit it granted as a result so that the case could be remanded for a full trial on the merits.

  • Burns v. SeaWorld Parks & Ent., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2024-03-08
    Practice Area: Expert Witnesses
    Industry: Entertainment and Leisure
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Beetlestone
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 22-2941

    Defendants moved to strike plaintiffs' expert witness report and testimony regarding the extent to which plaintiffs suffered trauma from alleged racial discrimination experienced at defendants' property. The court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to strike, concluding the expert's reasoning, in light of the testing that he performed, did not allow him to testify that the trauma symptoms he observed in individual plaintiffs were linked to the alleged discrimination that took place at defendants' park.

  • Chebbani v. U.S. Dep't of Agriculture

    Publication Date: 2023-05-22
    Practice Area: Expert Witnesses
    Industry: Federal Government
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Gallagher
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 5:21-cv-04298-JMG

    Plaintiff and defendant each moved to preclude the other's proffered expert testimony on damages in plaintiff's personal injury action arising out of an automobile accident. The court denied plaintiff's motions and denied in part and granted in part defendant's motion.

  • Arcuri v. PrimeCare Med., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2022-09-12
    Practice Area: Expert Witnesses
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Slomsky
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 22-1037

    Plaintiffs' medical witness was qualified to testify in this suit alleging medical negligence and civil rights violations as the expert's credentials were demonstrated in a curriculum vitae, even though the expert may not have been the "best" qualified to testify about the medical standard of care in a state correctional facility. The district court denied defendant's motion to preclude.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Chester County Court Rules 2024

    Authors:

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Schryver v. Twp. of Smithfield

    Publication Date: 2022-05-30
    Practice Area: Expert Witnesses
    Industry: Real Estate | State and Local Government
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Monroe County
    Judge: Judge Higgins
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 22-0495

    The court refused to bar plaintiffs' expert's testimony absent good reason to believe that an expert was necessary to draw a causal conclusion from expert testimony that upslope development caused damage to plaintiffs' property and lay witness testimony that the defendant conducted activities impacting storm water runoff. The court denied in part defendant's motion to exclude expert testimony.

  • Ralston v. Garabedian

    Publication Date: 2022-01-24
    Practice Area: Expert Witnesses
    Industry: Education | Legal Services
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Kearney
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 22-0071

    Defendant attorney moved to bar plaintiff's experts' testimonies in a defamation action and court excluded expert attorney's opinion on the application of the rules of professional conduct under rule 403, allowed another attorney's opinion to the extent it regarded the standard of care applicable to defendant's conduct, conditionally admitted economist's testimony subject to plaintiff adducing a foundation for it at trial, excluded much of forensic psychiatrist's testimony, and ordered a rule 104 hearing. Motions granted in part and d

  • Williams v. Benshetrit

    Publication Date: 2022-01-03
    Practice Area: Expert Witnesses
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Baylson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 21-1505

    Plaintiff filed a motion in limine to prevent defendant's expert witnesses from testifying that Percocet use could inhibit the effect of local dental anesthetics and court found experts regularly administered local dental anesthetics, they were qualified to testify to their opinion that Percocet could inhibit the efficacy of such anesthetics and plaintiff's assertion the opinions were not supported by scientific evidence or research was defeated by the deposition testimony of his own expert witness. Motion denied.

  • Braverman v. Winig

    Publication Date: 2021-05-31
    Practice Area: Expert Witnesses
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Fletman
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 21-0506

    The court denied a motion to disqualify a digital forensic company and its representative from testifying as expert witnesses, but it ordered them to release confidential records to avoid a conflict of interest.

  • Shaheen v. Williamsport Hosp.

    Publication Date: 2021-04-05
    Practice Area: Expert Witnesses
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lycoming County
    Judge: Judge Linhardt
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 21-0319

    While the reports of defendants' two medical experts overlapped in some areas, the expert reports provided separate perspectives and were, therefore, permissible as corroborative, rather than cumulative, evidence. The court denied plaintiff's motion in limine.