• Evilsizor v. SEPTA

    Publication Date: 2022-12-12
    Practice Area: Personal Injury
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Younge
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 00514

    Plaintiff could not sustain her personal injury action against defendant, a commonwealth agency, where she failed to meet her burden on causation and failed to demonstrate that defendant negligently maintained the highway where she fell off her bicycle by allowing a pothole or dangerous condition to exist. The trial court recommended affirmance.

  • Tyler v. Hoover

    Publication Date: 2022-12-05
    Practice Area: Personal Injury
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Hill
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 06965

    Court denied plaintiff's cross-appeal for delay damages on the basis that plaintiff failed to produce any evidence of how they arrived at their delay damages calculation. The court further noted that plaintiff failed to identify any delays which were attributable to defendant's conduct but instead found that the lengthy delay in the pre-trial history of the case was partially plaintiff's fault because plaintiff had failed to adhere to several discovery timelines.

  • York v. Kanan

    Publication Date: 2022-12-05
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Schulman
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 190802434

    Pursuant to federal case guidance, plaintiff was not entitled to a new trial based on an allegedly erroneous jury instruction as the court correctly charged the jury that the existence of probable cause as to one criminal charge barred plaintiff's malicious prosecution claim entirely. The court recommended affirmance.

  • Atuahene v. Agondanou

    Publication Date: 2022-12-05
    Practice Area: Civil Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Schulman
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 1494 EDA 2022

    Court requested that the superior court affirm the court's previous order denying appellant's request for the court to open the judgment of non prosequi. The court found that appellant's request to reopen was not based on a meritorious claim because her initial complaint had been filed beyond the applicable statute of limitations. The court further found that appellant failed to offer a reasonable excuse as to why she failed to appear at trial.

  • Am. Mushroom Coop. v. Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP

    Publication Date: 2022-11-28
    Practice Area: Legal Malpractice
    Industry: Agriculture | Distribution and Wholesale | Legal Services
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Padilla
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 02211

    Plaintiffs' malpractice claims were time-barred since they first knew or should have known that they had been injured by allegedly erroneous advice back in 2004, when they executed a consent judgment in a Department of Justice investigation of business practices purportedly based on that same advice. The court granted defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Lackawanna/Luzerne County Court Rules 2023

    Authors:

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Saahir v. Albert Einstein Med. Ctr.

    Publication Date: 2022-11-28
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Foglietta
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 03298

    The photographs documenting decedent's painful injuries while in hospital were directly relevant to plaintiff's wrongful death and survival claims, while defendant's argument regarding a discrepancy in the date of the photos went to the weight to be given such evidence at trial. The court recommended affirmance.

  • Tyler v. Hoover

    Publication Date: 2022-11-28
    Practice Area: Civil Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Hill
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 06965

    Court affirmed the trial court's ruling denying motions to preclude evidence stemming from a MRI noting that while the parties did have difficulty retrieving the MRI images from the third-party imaging company, plaintiff's medical expert received the images and included them in his expert opinion report. The court further found that the jury did not need to conclude that plaintiff had suffered "serious bodily injury" in reaching their award of economic damages.

  • Hatchigian v. ABCO

    Publication Date: 2022-11-28
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Manufacturing | Retail
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Shirdan-Harris
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 1358 EDA 2022

    Plaintiff could not recover costs he incurred for the installation of two replacement compressors as such costs qualified as consequential damages under Pennsylvania law, which the product's manufacturer and seller expressly excluded in warranties. The court recommended affirmance of its order granting defendants summary judgment.

  • Johnson v. LSF9 Master Participation Trust

    Publication Date: 2022-11-28
    Practice Area: Real Estate
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Street
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 00062

    The court granted defendant's request for an appeal of a default judgment after pro se plaintiff failed to accurately name defendant in the caption, body, and service of the complaint.

  • Troseth v. Carson Helicopters Holding Co. Inc.

    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).