• Doe v. The Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia

    Publication Date: 2024-06-14
    Practice Area: Government
    Industry: Education
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Cunningham
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 1210 CD 2023

    Defendants appealed the court's order denying their motion for judgment on the pleadings in plaintiff's action alleging sexual abuse by a teacher. The court concluded that its order should be affirmed where defendants' immunity under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act was subject to retroactive application of the Sexual Abuse exception enacted by the legislature in 2019.

  • Crawford v. Penn Cent. Corp.

    Publication Date: 2024-03-22
    Practice Area: Expert Witnesses
    Industry: Insurance
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Cunningham
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 210201573

    In this §1925(a) opinion, the trial court urged the Superior Court to affirm its decision to reconsider the preclusion of the plaintiff's expert witness and removing the nonsuit it granted as a result so that the case could be remanded for a full trial on the merits.

  • Saunders v. Lina Holdings, LLC

    Publication Date: 2024-02-16
    Practice Area: Real Estate
    Industry: Real Estate
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Cunningham
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 210702537

    In this case involving adverse possession of land fenced in by appellee and her late husband to make a side yard in 1988, the court asked the Superior Court to affirm its ruling in favor of appellee.

  • Watson v. Israel

    Publication Date: 2024-02-09
    Practice Area: Motor Vehicle Torts
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas
    Judge: Judge Cunningham
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 221001274

    In a §1925(a) opinion, the trial court urged the Superior Court to affirm its order granting summary judgment to the defendant based on collateral estoppel following an arbitration in which the plaintiff was found to be 100% liable for the motor vehicle collision at issue, a settlement based on the arbitration award, the payment of the settlement amount, and the filing of a new lawsuit by plaintiff and her husband based on the same motor vehicle collision.

  • Lewis-Hagins v. Williams

    Publication Date: 2024-02-02
    Practice Area: Personal Injury
    Industry: Real Estate | State and Local Government
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Cunningham
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 210300058

    Premises liability defendants appealed the court's order granting reconsideration and vacating its earlier order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that its decision should be affirmed where plaintiff's motion for reconsideration demonstrated the existence of a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether plaintiff saw a defect in a curb before she tripped and fell.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Lancaster County & Berks County Court Rules 2024

    Authors:

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Moody v. Lukoil

    Publication Date: 2023-12-11
    Practice Area: Litigation
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Cunningham
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 190902671

    In an opinion filed pursuant to Pa.R.App.P. 1925(a), the court asked the Superior Court to affirm the court's order attesting that a protective order precluding a zoom deposition of plaintiff's expert was in effect and that all testimony at trial was to be presented in person.

  • Derbyshire v. Aria Health

    Publication Date: 2023-10-16
    Practice Area: Personal Injury
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Cunningham
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 200202192

    In a slip-and-fall case, plaintiff appealed the denial of her motion for post-trial relief, complaining that defendant's failure to file a timely answer to her complaint constituted an admission to its negligence. The court filed an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.App.P. 1925(a) requesting affirmance of its decision finding that plaintiff's allegations of negligence and causation were conclusions of law, not factual averments, and defendant's failure to answer them did not constitute an admission.

  • Derbyshire v. Aria Health

    Publication Date: 2023-10-02
    Practice Area: Personal Injury
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Cunningham
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 210700236

    Slip-and-fall plaintiff appealed the court's order denying her motion for post-trial relief. The court held that defendant did not admit plaintiff's allegations of negligence and causation by failing to timely respond to her original complaint, and thus the court's order denying plaintiff's motion should be affirmed.

  • Xi v. Deegan

    Publication Date: 2022-12-19
    Practice Area: Civil Appeals
    Industry: Legal Services
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Cunningham
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 210900716

    Court affirmed decision dismissing appellant's complaint for failure to prosecute on the grounds that appellant repeatedly failed to respond to appellees' preliminary objections, filed multiple amended complaints, and failed to effectuate proper service of any of the complaints on appellees.

  • Mason v. Rosenblum

    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.