• Sebastian v. Xu

    Publication Date: 2023-11-13
    Practice Area: Fee Disputes
    Industry: Legal Services
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Allegheny County
    Judge: Judge Hertzberg
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: AR 21-5318

    The court found that it correctly declined to reduce defendant's bill for legal services and correctly found against defendant on his claim of legal malpractice and allegations of verbal abuse.

  • Rosadio v. Rodriguez

    Publication Date: 2023-11-13
    Practice Area: Real Estate
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Monroe County
    Judge: Judge Williamson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 3902 CIVIL 2023

    Plaintiff sought judgment on the pleadings in her action to eject defendant from residential real property. The court granted the motion.

  • Walsh v. Toth

    Publication Date: 2023-11-13
    Practice Area: Personal Injury
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County
    Judge: Judge Nealon
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22 CV 96

    Personal injury plaintiff sought partial summary judgment in her action seeking damages for injuries caused by an unrestrained dog. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, declaring that defendant dog owner was collaterally estopped from challenging adjudicated findings that his unrestrained dog entered plaintiff's premises and knocked her down the stairs, and that he was negligent per se based upon his conviction for violating the Dog Law.

  • Sterba v. Daniels

    Publication Date: 2023-11-13
    Practice Area: Real Estate
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Monroe County
    Judge: Judge Zulick
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 5396 CV 2022

    Plaintiff, as administratrix of her deceased son's estate, filed suit to eject defendants from real property. The court found in favor of plaintiff, awarding ejectment and damages, where defendants failed to assume a mortgage on the property and thus offered no consideration for plaintiff's earlier promise to convey.

  • Commonwealth v. Wright

    Publication Date: 2023-11-13
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry: Legal Services
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Fayette County
    Judge: Judge Cordaro
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 870 of 2016

    Petitioner filed an amended PCRA petition that raised claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court granted the petition based on petitioner's interrelated allegations of failure to consult and/or investigate, failure to obtain medical expert testimony, and failure to challenge an autopsy weight measurement of petitioner's deceased child. The court reasoned that petitioner's counsel were ineffective where they had scant contact with him before and during trial and failed to contest a purportedly inaccurate measurement of the

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Constangy’s Field Guide to the Fair Labor Standards Act 2014

    Authors: Michael D. Malfitano

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Uhazie v. JSD Performance Autos, LLC

    Publication Date: 2023-11-13
    Practice Area: Consumer Protection
    Industry: Automotive | Retail
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Fayette County
    Judge: Judge Leskinen
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 1053 of 2021, G D.

    Defendant moved for summary judgment on plaintiff's fraud and consumer protection complaint against the seller of a used car. The court denied defendant's motion.

  • Reid v. Borough of Whitehall

    Publication Date: 2023-11-13
    Practice Area: Labor Law
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Allegheny County
    Judge: Judge Hertzberg
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 974 WDA 2023

    Plaintiff appealed the court's decision denying his statutory appeal from an administrative hearing officer's decision affirming a plan administrator's denial of a disability pension. In addition to challenging the merits of the pension denial, plaintiff additionally asserted that the administrative hearing officer had a conflict of interest. The court concluded that the hearing officer did not suffer from a conflict of interest simply because he was the solicitor for a neighboring borough. The court concluded further that it did not

  • Holmes v. New Jersey Mfr. Ins. Co.

    Publication Date: 2023-11-13
    Practice Area: Insurance Law
    Industry: Insurance
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Monroe County
    Judge: Judge Higgins
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 4620-CV-2020

    Defendant insurance company filed three motions in limine in plaintiff's suit on an underinsured motorist claim arising out of a motor vehicle accident. The court granted the motions.

  • Aviation Holdings, L.P. v. DeGOL Jet Ctr., L.P.

    Publication Date: 2023-11-13
    Practice Area: Civil Procedure
    Industry: Aerospace
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lycoming County
    Judge: Judge Carlucci
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: CV 23-00100

    Defendant raised preliminary objections to the amended complaint in a motion to strike and demurrer. Plaintiff filed preliminary objections to defendant's preliminary objections. The court granted those preliminary objections in part and denied in part.

  • PennTex Ventures, LLC v. City of Uniontown

    Publication Date: 2023-11-06
    Practice Area: Land Use and Planning
    Industry: Construction | Real Estate | State and Local Government
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Fayette County
    Judge: Judge Leskinen
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 2165 of 2022, G.D.

    Plaintiff developers filed a priority motion for peremptory judgment in their action for recognition of the right to deemed development plan approval. The court denied the motion where defendant city's ordinances failed to conclusively vest exclusive jurisdiction over land development plans in city's planning commission, and where the record did not conclusively show whether city council's actions on the planning commission's recommendation triggered a new obligation for a written response to plaintiffs' land development application.