Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
640 results for '* court:"Courts of Common Pleas Philadelphia"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2022-10-24
Practice Area: Wrongful Death
Industry: Manufacturing
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Fletman
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 190301223
Court denied appellant's appeal objecting to the court's order granting summary judgment on appellant's claims in a wrongful death action arising out of asbestos exposure. Although appellant claimed that the decedent was exposed to asbestos while working for appellee, no evidence was produced. Therefore, the court found that appellant's claims were speculative at best and failed to create a genuine issue of material fact.
Publication Date: 2022-10-03
Practice Area: Civil Appeals
Industry: Health Care
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Patrick
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 1115 EDA 2022
Plaintiff's challenges to an order denying her post-trial motions for relief were improper as those orders involved matters decided during pre-trial stages of the litigation, and the law of the case doctrine barred the appellate court from reopening questions decided during earlier stages of the litigation process. The court recommended affirmance.
Publication Date: 2022-09-26
Practice Area: Civil Appeals
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Younge
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 1293 CD 2019
Court affirmed a trial court's award of statutory fines which cumulated due to several years' of daily non-compliance fines. Although appellant argued the fines were excessive and unwarranted, the court found that they were properly awarded under both the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions.
Publication Date: 2022-09-26
Practice Area: Civil Procedure
Industry: Retail
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Shreeves-Johns
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 2269 EDA 2021
Court denied a motion for reconsideration/appeal after a complaint filed in Pennsylvania was dismissed following a forum non conveniens motion arguing the wrongful death action should be litigated in Delaware. The court held that the motion was properly granted due to the fact that the product was purchased in Delaware, where defendant-appellee was also incorporated. Therefore, the court held that there was greater access to evidence and witness in Delaware and that Delaware State Courts were better situated to apply their own laws.
Publication Date: 2022-09-19
Practice Area: Dispute Resolution
Industry: Construction
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Allen
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 001570
The court refused to enforce an arbitration agreement within a written contract against the plaintiff-wife where she had not signed the agreement and neither plaintiff, husband and wife, had the power to act as agent for the other spouse merely due to their marital relationship. The court recommended affirmance in part.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Amy Elizabeth Stewart
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2022-09-19
Practice Area: Civil Appeals
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Crumlish
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 171202397
Court denied plaintiff's appeal from an order denying post-trial relief where plaintiff argued the jury's lump sum award did not accurately consider his mental anguish. The court found plaintiff had voluntarily signed a jury slip agreeing to a lump sum award and therefore was precluded from arguing he disagreed with the division of the award. The court further found plaintiff had tactically chosen not to present evidence of his mental health at trial as he knew this would open him up to cross-examination on several issues that would u
Publication Date: 2022-09-19
Practice Area: Dispute Resolution
Industry: Entertainment and Leisure
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Foglietta
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 02154
Plaintiffs, father and daughter, were not parties to an agreement signed by their wife and mother, respectively, since parents do not possess the authority to release a minor's claims merely because of the parental relation and husband and wife cannot act as an agent for the other merely due to their marital relationship. The court recommended affirmance of its order denying a motion to compel arbitration.
Publication Date: 2022-09-12
Practice Area: Government
Industry: State and Local Government
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Roberts
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0985
The successor judge overturned a jury's verdict finding that a SEPTA officer was not protected under governmental immunity. The court noted the jury's verdict was inconsistent, as the jury had found that three other officers, with no distinguishable facts, were not liable for similar actions. The court further noted that the officer was clearly acting within the scope of his employment and entered JNOV in defendant's favor.
Publication Date: 2022-09-12
Practice Area: Land Use and Planning
Industry: Real Estate | State and Local Government
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Butchart
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0987
Court affirmed the court's order denying a motion to dismiss a matter due to mootness where a property subject to an Act 135 conservatorship request was demolished and vacated prior to the court's ruling on the matter. The court found that because Act 135 allowed conservatorships to proceed where property was vacant, the matter was not moot.
Publication Date: 2022-09-12
Practice Area: Discovery
Industry: Construction | Federal Government
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Cohen
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0986
Court affirmed an order compelling the production of documents defendant corporation claimed were confidential due to the fact that the SEC had previously requested the documents. The court reasoned that because defendant produced the documents to the SEC they waived confidentiality by turning them over to potential adversaries.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read