Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
106 results for '* judge:"Judge Cox"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2023-02-06
Practice Area: Criminal Law
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Cox
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 709 OF 2021
Police were required to obtain a search warrant prior to seizing defendant's cell phone as there was no evidence to suggest he was likely to delete his cell phone's internet browser history and, thus, a lack of exigent circumstances necessitating immediate seizure of the phone. The court granted in part defendant's motion to suppress.
Publication Date: 2023-01-23
Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
Industry: Health Care
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Cox
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 10023 OF 2021, C.A.
The court granted in part and denied in part defendant medical facility's objections to plaintiff's claims. The court dismissed plaintiff's breach of contract claim finding that the conduct complained of would be better captioned in a claim for medical malpractice but overruled defendant's objections to the informed consent and battery claims, finding that plaintiff's pled sufficient facts.
Publication Date: 2023-01-23
Practice Area: Criminal Law
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Cox
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 660 OF 2021
The court granted in part and denied in part criminal defendant's pretrial motions. The court granted defendant's habeas petitions in part finding that the state failed to present "some" evidence of the crimes charged. The court further denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence of an illegal search, detention, and arrest, finding that the officer acted appropriately, had sufficient cause to pull the vehicle over, and received consent to search the vehicle.
Publication Date: 2022-12-05
Practice Area: Civil Procedure
Industry: Real Estate
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Cox
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 10134 OF 2022, C.A.
While defendants failed to attach to their notice of appeal one of the two magisterial district court judgments they challenged, the disposition and judgment summaries attached contained information regarding both cases, and plaintiffs would not be prejudiced by allowing defendants to pursue their claims. The court overruled plaintiffs' preliminary objections.
Publication Date: 2022-11-21
Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
Industry: Health Care
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Cox
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 30007 OF 2016, C.A.
While the state's Emergency Medical Services Systems Act provides that emergency medical service providers are immune from suit unless the claimant establishes gross negligence or willful misconduct, plaintiff's evidence, including two medical expert reports, raised issues of material fact regarding whether defendants acted with gross negligence in treating the decedent during a cardiac incident. The court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Gary L. Brown
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2022-11-21
Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
Industry: Health Care
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Cox
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 30010 OF 2021, C.A.
Plaintiff's medical malpractice complaint lacked the specificity required by Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a) absent any factual averments to indicate what action/inaction caused plaintiff's alleged harm and her demand for punitive damages lacked any allegations to demonstrate that defendants acted in a manner that was malicious, willful, oppressive or exhibited reckless indifference to the rights of others. The court sustained defendants' preliminary objections.
Publication Date: 2022-11-14
Practice Area: Criminal Law
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Cox
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 369 OF 2021
The court refused to suppress evidence obtained during defendant's detention since the individual who detained defendant on suspicion of discharging a firearm was acting as a private security guard for the complex where the incident occurred, not as a state actor. The court recommended affirmance.
Publication Date: 2022-11-07
Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
Industry: State and Local Government
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Cox
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 92 OF 2021, S.A.
Court overturned trial court finding that a street musician had violated the New Wilmington Borough Local Ordinance §100-2 by singing alone on the street corner. The court reviewed the specific language of the statute and concluded that defendant was not assembling a group of people. Therefore, the court found for defendant due to the statute's clear and unambiguous language.
Publication Date: 2022-09-26
Practice Area: Landlord Tenant Law
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Cox
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 10937 OF 2021, C.A.
The court denied a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state specific requests to recover past-due rent. Although defendants argued plaintiff leasing company was precluded from seeking this amount because they did not raise this request with the Magisterial District Court, the court pointed to Pa.R.C.P.M.D.J. 1007(b) which does not limit parties to the amount in controversy or the claims raised by the Magisterial District Court when bringing subsequent claims before the court of common pleas.
Publication Date: 2022-09-19
Practice Area: Criminal Law
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Cox
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 325 OF 2020
Court granted a motion to suppress evidence seized during a warrantless search of defendant's girlfriend's house. While the prosecution argued the search was justified because defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy and that exigent circumstances were present, the court found defendant did have a reasonable expectation of privacy since he spent a great deal of time in the home and exigent circumstances were not present since a considerable length of time had passed since the alleged crime.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read