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: 2022-09-05
Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
Industry: Legal Services
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Fox
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0897
Petitioner was not entitled to the attorney general's intervention in the underlying criminal matter under the Commonwealth Attorneys Act since she failed to follow the procedures set forth in that Act and also filed her request prematurely, before substantiating a conflict of interest claim. The court recommended affirmance.
Publication Date: 2022-09-05
Practice Area: Criminal Law
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Foglietta
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0899
Court requested the superior court affirm the court's order dismissing a claim against a police officer alleging the officer did not have probable cause to search the plaintiff after discovering contraband next to plaintiff inside an automobile. The court disagreed with plaintiff's argument that constructive possession was historically not found in automobiles and ruled that based on clear precedent, constructive possession may be found in automobiles, or any location for that matter, depending on the set of facts.
Publication Date: 2022-09-05
Practice Area: Criminal Law
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Roberts
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0898
The Pennsylvania SPCA demonstrated that the seizure of 19 animals from respondent's unsanitary residence was warranted and that its discounted claim for the cost of boarding the seized animals was reasonable. The court recommended affirmance of its order directing respondent to pay costs.
Publication Date: 2022-09-05
Practice Area: Discovery
Industry: State and Local Government
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Cohen
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0900
Court ruled that the trial court properly granted a motion to compel discovery responses in a case stemming from a decedent's death caused by a foster child. Although the defendant argued the responses were confidential because they stemmed from the child's welfare case file, the court held the information sought was not directly contained in the child's welfare file and therefore the court properly granted the motion to compel.
Publication Date: 2022-09-05
Practice Area: Civil Appeals
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Hill
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0901
Court ruled trial court's refusal to hear a motion in limine was not prejudicial and at worst resulted in harmless error. While the court did not conduct a hearing on the motion, they did make curative orders to counsel and the jury regarding the substantive request. The court further ruled the trial court's admittance of evidence, in the form of appellant's statements, was appropriately entered under several exceptions to the hearsay rule.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Trey Cox, Jason Dennis
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2022-08-01
Practice Area: Civil Appeals
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Campbell
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0786
Court denied defendant's post-verdict motions challenging the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial as well as a post-verdict order correcting the awarded damages to the plaintiff. Specifically, the court noted defendant failed to properly preserve their arguments for appeal. The court further noted the need to correct the awarded verdict was due to a clerical oversight and cited precedent allowing the court to exercise its discretion to correct the record to properly reflect the amount of the awarded verdict.
Publication Date: 2022-08-01
Practice Area: Personal Injury
Industry: Food and Beverage | Hospitality and Lodging
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Foglietta
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0787
Court denied defendant's request for appeal arising out of a trial court verdict finding defendant LLC vicariously liable for damages caused by a franchisee employee. While defendant argued that a master-servant relationship did not exist, the court reviewed evidence citing to defendant's right to a significant amount of control and oversight over the employee, thus making them vicariously liable for plaintiff's injuries.
Publication Date: 2022-08-01
Practice Area: Civil Appeals
Industry: Construction | Real Estate
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Patrick
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0785
Court denied appeal asserting the trial court improperly granted a preliminary injunction halting the demolition of a historic property. Though appellants argued service was improper, the court reviewed the record and determined several facts demonstrating appellants received actual, proper notice of the hearing. Furthermore, although appellants argued appellees failed to show irreparable harm, the court noted the evidence presented at the hearing was sufficient to determine irreparable harm would result to the property.
Publication Date: 2022-08-01
Practice Area: Government
Industry: State and Local Government
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Saltz
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0784
The court denied an emergency motion to stay the City of Philadelphia's reinstatement of an indoor mask mandate given that the Philadelphia Code specifically provides for the suspension of the Home Rule Charter's normal regulatory process in the event of public health and safety emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The court recommended affirmance.
Publication Date: 2022-07-25
Practice Area: Insurance Law
Industry: Insurance
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Djerassi
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0758
Court granted a request for injunctive relief where an insurance policy clearly provided advancement of defense funds in criminal proceedings. Specifically, the court noted the language of the policy was clear and a court would likely find that the defendant insurance company improperly denied the claim. Moreover, the court analyzed each of the elements required for injunctive relief and weighed the irreparable harm plaintiff would suffer by not having adequate defense against the "harm" defendant would suffer, in as much as the court
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read