Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
348 results for '* court:"Courts of Common Pleas Lawrence County"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2022-11-07
Practice Area: Land Use and Planning
Industry: State and Local Government
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Hodge
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 10470 of 2021, C.A.
Plaintiffs' Declaratory Judgment Act complaint, which asserted that defendants were interfering with their use of an alley by calling police and seeking measures from the local township, alleged facts sufficient to indicate imminent and inevitable litigation as well as a direct, substantial and present interest. The court overruled in part defendants' preliminary objections.
Publication Date: 2022-11-07
Practice Area: Real Estate
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Hodge
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 10473 OF 2020, C.A.
Court granted injunctive relief on the grounds that plaintiffs had properly established that the deed in question intended plaintiffs to have access to a 50-foot strip of land. Outside of the deed, the court further granted injunctive relief on the grounds that plaintiffs had established the need for an easement by necessity.
Publication Date: 2022-10-31
Practice Area: Government
Industry: State and Local Government
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Motto
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 70040 OF 2021, C.A.
Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that they had a legal right to have a public restroom opened by the defendant borough where they paid a merchant license fee directed at raising funds to maintain the restroom and continued to pay the fee without their customers having consistent and regular access to the facility. The court overruled in part defendants' preliminary objections.
Publication Date: 2022-10-31
Practice Area: Real Estate
Industry: Real Estate
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Hodge
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 70066 of 2022, MD
Plaintiff failed to establish the first factor required for the maintenance of a lis pendens upon real property, that title to the property was at issue in this litigation; therefore, the court was not required to address the second relevant factor, a balancing of the equities involved. The court denied plaintiff's motion for lis pendens.
Publication Date: 2022-10-24
Practice Area: Land Use and Planning
Industry: Mining and Resources | State and Local Government
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Hodge
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 70122 of 2021, MD
The court overturned the decision of a borough to deny a permit request for conditional non-coal surface mining finding the zoning board failed to meet their burden of proof to demonstrate that the permit sought was not consistent with the promotion of the public's health, safety, and public welfare.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors:
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2022-10-24
Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
Industry: Automotive | Construction | Retail
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Motto
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 10474 OF 2020, C.A.
Court partially sustained preliminary objections arising out of defendant's failure to cover repairs allegedly covered under a vehicle's extended warranty. In sustaining the objections, the court found plaintiff failed to adhere to pleading requirements set forth in Pa.R.C.P. 1020. The court also applied the "gist of the action" doctrine, noting that the claims were rooted in contractual rather than tort disputes. The court did, however, find that plaintiff pled fraud with the requisite specificity and appropriately pled bad faith cla
Publication Date: 2022-10-17
Practice Area: Trusts and Estates
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Hodge
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 77 of 2012, O.C.
The court granted a motion for reconsideration in part and denied it in part finding that the court had properly considered all relevant facts when appointing an attorney as a co-guardian of an incapacitated person's estate and person. The court noted that because petitioner raised no new facts, a motion for reconsideration was not the proper vehicle to simply present an argument for the second time.
Publication Date: 2022-10-03
Practice Area: Discovery
Industry: Real Estate | State and Local Government
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Hodge
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 10619 OF 2021
Plaintiff failed to produce probable cause that his discovery requests would advance his ability to bring any claims against defendants upon which relief could be granted as he lacked standing to bring claims on behalf of a trust and defendants were immune from his proposed claims under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act. The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss.
Publication Date: 2022-09-26
Practice Area: Landlord Tenant Law
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Cox
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 10937 OF 2021, C.A.
The court denied a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state specific requests to recover past-due rent. Although defendants argued plaintiff leasing company was precluded from seeking this amount because they did not raise this request with the Magisterial District Court, the court pointed to Pa.R.C.P.M.D.J. 1007(b) which does not limit parties to the amount in controversy or the claims raised by the Magisterial District Court when bringing subsequent claims before the court of common pleas.
Publication Date: 2022-09-19
Practice Area: Criminal Law
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Cox
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 325 OF 2020
Court granted a motion to suppress evidence seized during a warrantless search of defendant's girlfriend's house. While the prosecution argued the search was justified because defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy and that exigent circumstances were present, the court found defendant did have a reasonable expectation of privacy since he spent a great deal of time in the home and exigent circumstances were not present since a considerable length of time had passed since the alleged crime.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read