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: 2022-09-19
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.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Jayme C. Long
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
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.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read