Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
663 results for '* court:"Courts of Common Pleas Philadelphia County"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
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
Publication Date: 2022-06-27
Practice Area: Civil Procedure
Industry: Automotive | Manufacturing | Retail
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Crumlish
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0660
The court refused to transfer this case based on purported evidence of inconvenience as distance alone was an insufficient basis upon which to transfer this matter, and the moving parties' assertion that certain witness would be vital was speculative while the proposed testimony was cumulative and tangential. The court of common pleas recommended affirmance.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors:
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2022-06-27
Practice Area: Insurance Law
Industry: Insurance
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Djerassi
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0695
The nominal defendant, who was injured in the course of her employment, was collaterally estopped from relitigating the issue of her employment status in this declaratory action as she successfully raised and litigated that issue in a prior action for workers' compensation benefits. The court recommended affirmance.
Publication Date: 2022-06-20
Practice Area: Personal Injury
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Allen
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0583
Although the inquiry notice approach to statutes of limitations could be perceived as harsh as applied in this personal injury case involving a sexual assault, the court could not provide plaintiff with relief where she failed to file her suit within two years of her inquiry notice of the assault and resulting injuries. The court recommended affirmance.
Publication Date: 2022-06-20
Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
Industry: Construction
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Foglietta
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0584
The court rejected defendant's claim that plaintiff's failure to secure a mechanical permit for a construction project caused a delay in his performance under a construction contract as the parties' "course of performance" demonstrated that defendant, as general contractor, picked up all required permits and advanced the cost for those permits. The court recommended affirmance.
Publication Date: 2022-06-20
Practice Area: Constitutional Law
Industry: Non-Profit
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Patrick
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0586
The injunctive order barring defendant from appearing within 1,000 feet of plaintiff's church property was narrowly tailored so as to allow defendant to protest the church's leadership and distribute material from that distance while also achieving the specific need to protect congregants' access to the church and its services. The court recommended affirmance.
Publication Date: 2022-06-20
Practice Area: Labor Law
Industry: Health Care
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Allen
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0582
The court refused to dismiss plaintiff's workplace harassment claims based on her failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act where she sought protections from workplace harassment afforded to all employees and did not allege that the inappropriate conduct was due, in any part, to her gender. The court recommended affirmance.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read