Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
3,103 results for '* court:"Courts of Common Pleas"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2022-12-19
Practice Area: Personal Injury
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lycoming County
Judge: Judge Caffrey
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 2020-C-1979
The court denied defendant's motion to dismiss in a personal injury action on the grounds that plaintiff had made a good-faith effort to effectuate proper service of the amended complaint during the applicable statute of limitations. The court pointed towards the fact that plaintiff had attempted to serve defendant via certified mail and even went as far as hiring a private investigator to locate the best address for defendant.
Publication Date: 2022-12-19
Practice Area: Civil Appeals
Industry: Legal Services
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Cunningham
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 210900716
Court affirmed decision dismissing appellant's complaint for failure to prosecute on the grounds that appellant repeatedly failed to respond to appellees' preliminary objections, filed multiple amended complaints, and failed to effectuate proper service of any of the complaints on appellees.
Publication Date: 2022-12-19
Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
Industry: Recruitment and Staffing
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lehigh County
Judge: Judge Caffrey
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 2021-C-3143
The court overruled defendant company's preliminary objections challenging plaintiff's breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims. Although defendant argued that they had never promised work to plaintiff, the court noted that they were bound by the facts and assertions in plaintiff's operative complaint which included cognizable claims against defendant.
Publication Date: 2022-12-19
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Construction | State and Local Government
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lycoming County
Judge: Judge Carlucci
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: CV 16-1320
Plaintiff's proffered evidence, including the reports of three expert witnesses, raised material issues of fact regarding the proper interpretation of a contract term requiring the company to construct a tank to store excess leachate from an expanded landfill that was "watertight." The court denied all parties' motions for summary judgment.
Publication Date: 2022-12-19
Practice Area: Trade Secrets
Industry: Retail
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Allegheny County
Judge: Judge Hertzberg
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 18-10757
Court affirmed the jury's verdict in a claim arising out of trade secret information contained on a customer list defendants had taken and used without plaintiffs' permission. Although defendants argued that a customer list did not constitute a "trade secret," the court disagreed and pointed to Pennsylvania Supreme Court precedent to the contrary. The court further affirmed the award of attorney fees finding them reasonable given the amount of litigation and work involved.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Michael L. Goldberg, Editor, Fried Rogers Goldberg, LLC
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2022-12-19
Practice Area: Personal Injury
Industry: Manufacturing
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Shreeves-Johns
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 02048
Court affirmed a decision granting a motion to transfer venue under Pa.R.C.P. 1006(d)(1) on the grounds that the former venue was oppressive to several of the witnesses who did not reside within the county and would have to travel several hours for depositions, trials, etc. The court further rejected appellant's arguments that the court did not allow the parties to engage in enough discovery related to the issue of venue selection finding that appellants were allowed to submit several affidavits to the court regarding venue selection.
Publication Date: 2022-12-19
Practice Area: Criminal Law
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Montgomery County
Judge: Judge Rogers
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 7289-2019
The delay in bringing defendant to trial was not so harsh as to warrant dismissal where the circumstances were largely attributable to the global COVID-19 pandemic, a large backlog resulting from the court's shutdown, the prioritization of cases and defendant's release on bail and subsequent incarceration for first degree murder. The court denied defendant's motion to dismiss.
Publication Date: 2022-12-19
Practice Area: Election and Political Law
Industry: State and Local Government
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Montgomery County
Judge: Judge Zulick
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 7228 CV 2022
The court refused to enjoin defendant from notifying mail-in and absentee ballot voters of any obvious defects in their ballots, thereby allowing them to submit a proper ballot since granting injunctive relief one day before the election would cause greater harm than refusing it. The court denied plaintiffs' request.
Publication Date: 2022-12-19
Practice Area: Real Estate
Industry: Real Estate
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Montgomery County
Judge: Judge Saltz
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 2017-03442
While defendant's proposed remedy for the abatement of water flow from his property to plaintiffs' property was arguably inadequate to abate excess water runoff, it was more closely tailored to the extent of the actionable conduct than plaintiffs' suggestion, which went beyond the modification necessary to address the impact of the conduct at issue. The court recommended affirmance.
Publication Date: 2022-12-12
Practice Area: Criminal Law
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lehigh County
Judge: Judge Steinberg
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 2048 EDA 2022
The court affirmed the trial court's granting of a motion to suppress evidence seized during a vehicle search conducted during a routine traffic stop. Although the commonwealth argued that they did not extend the stop beyond the timeframe necessary, the court disagreed and was persuaded by the fact that the officer had initially told appellee he was free to go as his license and registration were valid. The court further disagreed that appellee's consent to search his vehicle was freely given, finding instead that a language-barrier a
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read