Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
359 results for '* court:"Courts of Common Pleas Lawrence County"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2021-11-08
Practice Area: Criminal Law
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Cox
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-1131
The court, finding that the subject incident was a routine traffic stop and not a custodial interrogation, held that Miranda warnings were not required. Regarding probable cause, the court held that probable cause existed for the subsequent arrest based on the totality of the circumstances including the odor of marijuana in the car. Also, the court held that the Commonwealth presented a prima facie case of DUI. Motions to suppress arrest and for habeas corpus denied.
Publication Date: 2021-11-01
Practice Area: Toxic Torts
Industry: Manufacturing
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Motto
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-1130
In this strict liability asbestos exposure suit, the court held that plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to meet the frequency, duration and proximity test from Eckenrod v. GAF Corp., 544 A.2d 50 (Pa. Super. 1988) such that defendant's motion for summary judgment must fail. Motion denied.
Publication Date: 2021-10-04
Practice Area: Wrongful Death
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom | Transportation
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Cox
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-0983
Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to show that corporate defendant regularly conducted business in Lawrence County per Pa.R.Civ.P. 2179(a) where defendant maintained communication lines, utility poles and other hardware in the county. Defendants' objection alleging improper venue overruled.
Publication Date: 2021-09-13
Practice Area: Family Law
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Hodge
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-0893
Plaintiff's complaint for custody of minor A.A. was granted where 1) the in loco parentis provision of the Custody Act gave plaintiff standing to seek custody due to the amount of care given by plaintiff to minor, 2) the weight of evidence showed plaintiff first rebutted the presumption favoring natural parents and, second, demonstrated that was in A.A.'s best interests to remain in plaintiff's custody, 3) factual averments of complaint plus judicial notice of dependency hearing was sufficient basis to decide on standing without an ev
Publication Date: 2021-09-06
Practice Area: Insurance Law
Industry: Insurance
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Motto
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-0866
Insurer was not entitled to summary judgment in this motor vehicle injury case involving limited tort coverage, because genuine issues of material fact existed about whether plaintiff suffered serious injuries.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors:
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2021-09-06
Practice Area: Criminal Law
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Motto
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-0867
The commonwealth established a prima facie case against defendant despite the death of a confidential informant, so the court denied defendant's pretrial motions to suppress and dismiss.
Publication Date: 2021-09-06
Practice Area: Creditors' and Debtors' Rights
Industry: Health Care
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Cox
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-0894
Plaintiff correctly argued that dismissal of this action based on the five-year statute of limitations in 42 Pa.C.S.§5525(a) was not warranted because a judgment had already been entered against defendants and §5526(1) applied to this suit to revive a judgment lien on defendant's real property. The court sustained in part plaintiff's preliminary objections.
Publication Date: 2021-08-30
Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
Industry: Transportation
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Motto
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-0839
The court overruled defendant's preliminary objections, because plaintiff adequately stated a claim for breach of contract and was not required to plead causation. Additionally, plaintiff did not fail to join indispensable parties.
Publication Date: 2021-08-02
Practice Area: Family Law
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Motto
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-0751
Plaintiff's complaint seeking the partition of real property co-owned by the formerly married couple was premature where the complaint failed to allege that plaintiff complied with the terms of the marriage settlement agreement by first giving defendant an opportunity to purchase his interest. The court sustained defendant's preliminary objections in part.
Publication Date: 2021-06-28
Practice Area: Public Records
Industry: State and Local Government
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Hodge
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-0620
Petitioner was not entitled to attorney fees under the Right-to-Know Law where the court was not reversing a final determination of an appeals officer or granting access to a record after access was denied and, inter alia, respondent did not act willfully or with wanton disregard to deprive petitioner of access to any public record or otherwise act in bad faith. The court of common pleas affirmed.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read