Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
665 results for '* court:"Courts of Common Pleas Philadelphia"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2022-11-21
Practice Area: Civil Procedure
Industry: Manufacturing | Transportation
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Kennedy
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 1222
The court affirmed the decision of the trial court finding that venue was proper because one appellant had sufficient quantity and quality of acts to qualify Philadelphia County as a proper venue. The court additionally held that venue was proper for the remaining appellant under Pa. R.C.P. 1006(c)(1).
Publication Date: 2022-11-21
Practice Area: Civil Procedure
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Cunningham
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 210201867
Plaintiff could not maintain a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress against defendant where she did not file her claim within two years of becoming aware of an audio recording that gave rise to her claim as well as the allegedly negative effect the tape was having on her family. The court recommended affirmance.
Publication Date: 2022-11-21
Practice Area: Personal Injury
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Shreeves-Johns
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 00794
The court affirmed the trial court's order granting a motion to dismiss and denying a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. The court focused on the fact that although appellant knew they had named the wrong party in the complaint's caption, they did not seek to cure this defect until after the applicable statute of limitations had passed. Accordingly, the court noted that the trial court did not err or abuse their discretion.
Publication Date: 2022-11-21
Practice Area: Civil Appeals
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Patrick
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 806 CD 2022
The court of common pleas dismissed appellant's appeal in this Right to Know Law dispute as she failed to properly prosecute the appeal in accordance with the court's prior orders despite being granted multiple extension in all of her six prior motions for extraordinary relief. The court recommended affirmance.
Publication Date: 2022-10-24
Practice Area: Damages
Industry: Construction
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Hill
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 2436 EDA 2021
Court found against defendants, who raised a statement of matters complained of on appeal challenging the trial court's orders and jury's verdict arising out of a trial for damages stemming from a home repair contract between the parties. Although defendant argued that the court erred in various aspects regarding expert witnesses, the court held that these were harmless errors which did not prevent defendant from presenting their case to the jury.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: James S. Bolan, Sara N. Holden
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
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.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read