Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
368 results for '* court:"Courts of Common Pleas Lawrence County"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2020-03-16
Practice Area: Criminal Law
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Cox
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-0182
A police officer's encounter with defendant was a lawful seizure falling under the "public servant" exception to the need for a warrant within the community caretaker doctrine where an experienced officer would reasonably infer from circumstances, i.e. a disabled car in a ditch partially blocking the roadway, that the vehicle and its occupants were in need of immediate assistance. The court denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence.
Publication Date: 2020-03-02
Practice Area: Public Records
Industry: State and Local Government
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Motto
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-0151
Public entity made a reasonable effort to locate documents relating to a public records request, so the court denied mandamus relief.
Publication Date: 2020-02-10
Practice Area: Motor Vehicle Torts
Industry: Insurance
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Cox
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 20-0088
Plaintiff had elected a limited tort option for her automobile insurance, and the question of whether she was entitled to non-economic damages as the result of a serious injury was a matter for the jury to decide. Motion for partial summary judgment denied.
Publication Date: 2020-01-13
Practice Area: Criminal Law
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Motto
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 19-1529
While the court could not rely on field sobriety tests performed by the arresting officer in making a determination that probable cause existed to arrest defendant for driving under the influence, the officer's observations of defendant's bloodshot and jerking eyes, slurred speech and the smell of alcohol were sufficient to demonstrate probable cause. The court denied a motion to suppress.
Publication Date: 2020-01-13
Practice Area: Real Estate
Industry: Real Estate
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Cox
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 19-1523
Buyers adequately alleged that sellers made fraudulent disclosures about the condition of real property, but they failed to allege enough specifics in support of their claim for special damages. The court sustained some of the preliminary objections, but allowed buyers leave to file an amended complaint.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: James S. Bolan, Sara N. Holden
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2020-01-06
Practice Area: Civil Procedure
Industry: Real Estate | State and Local Government
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Cox
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 19-1474
The lis pendens plaintiff submitted in this case against defendant's real property was patently unfair and unnecessary given that the allegations in plaintiff's complaint were rooted in contract and tort law but did not contain a single count regarding title to the property. The court granted defendant's motion to strike.
Publication Date: 2020-01-06
Practice Area: Criminal Law
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Motto
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 19-1475
The court denied defendant's motion to suppress, because the police properly made a vehicle stop and searched a residence.
Publication Date: 2019-12-30
Practice Area: Personal Injury
Industry: Food and Beverage
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Hodge
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 19-1473
Siding with Rivero v. Timblin and other cases holding that common law negligence and Dram Shop Act liability are not mutually exclusive causes of action, the court concluded that the Dram Shop Act was not plaintiff's exclusive remedy against the defendant liquor licensee. The court overruled defendant's preliminary objections in part.
Publication Date: 2019-11-18
Practice Area: Creditors' and Debtors' Rights
Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Automotive
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Motto
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 19-1286
In this debt collection matter, plaintiff failed to establish it was entitled to relief under the Motor Vehicle Sales Finance Act. The court dismissed the complaint, but permitted plaintiff to amend. Plaintiff filed this action based on defendant's alleged violation of a retail installment sale agreement. Shenango Auto Mall sold defendant a used automobile. Plaintiff claimed that Shenango assigned its interest under the contract to plaintiff. Defendant allegedly failed to make all of the payments required under the installment agreeme
Publication Date: 2019-11-04
Practice Area: Government
Industry: Real Estate | State and Local Government
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Hodge
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 19-1252
Addressing an issue of first impression, the court of common pleas held that Pennsylvania's Municipalities Planning Code "trumped" the Optional Third-Class City Charter Law under the circumstances and, therefore, the Mayor of the City of New Castle could not veto a new zoning ordinance amendment passed by city council. The court granted plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read