Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
51 results for '* judge:"Judge Hertzberg"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2023-01-23
Practice Area: Education Law
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Allegheny County
Judge: Judge Hertzberg
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: SA 22-0129
The court found for plaintiff parents in a local agency law matter involving an educational dispute. Although defendant school district argued that the student was not entitled to receive a free education because he did not reside in the district's geographic boundaries, the court found that defendant had merely made inferences that the student was residing with his mother outside of the boundaries, rather than spending equal amounts of time with both parents as discussed in 22 Pa.Code §11.11(a).
Publication Date: 2023-01-09
Practice Area: Evidence
Industry: Food and Beverage | Retail
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Allegheny County
Judge: Judge Hertzberg
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: GD 16-5861
The court admitted into evidence a study on incidents involving the type of mat at issue in plaintiff's accident as the study was offered to rebut defendant's argument that plaintiff's accident was an isolated incident and that the mats did not pose any danger to customers. The court recommended affirmance.
Publication Date: 2022-12-26
Practice Area: Labor Law
Industry: State and Local Government
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Allegheny County
Judge: Judge Hertzberg
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 1076 CD 2022
The court denied petitioner's request to vacate an arbitrator's award finding that under the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the Union was not obligated to continue to provide health insurance to a surviving spouse where the coverage was deemed a choice of "last resort." The court noted that they must give "extreme deference" to an arbitrator's award and found the arbitrator's award to be reasonable and free from clear errors.
Publication Date: 2022-12-19
Practice Area: Trade Secrets
Industry: Retail
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Allegheny County
Judge: Judge Hertzberg
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 18-10757
Court affirmed the jury's verdict in a claim arising out of trade secret information contained on a customer list defendants had taken and used without plaintiffs' permission. Although defendants argued that a customer list did not constitute a "trade secret," the court disagreed and pointed to Pennsylvania Supreme Court precedent to the contrary. The court further affirmed the award of attorney fees finding them reasonable given the amount of litigation and work involved.
Publication Date: 2022-10-31
Practice Area: Real Estate
Industry: Real Estate | State and Local Government
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Allegheny County
Judge: Judge Hertzberg
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 719 CD 2022
Court affirmed decision granting plaintiff landowner's request for a board of reviewers to be appointed to oversee the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation's demolition of a pedestrian bridge which effectively landlocked plaintiff. Although defendants argued they were using their police powers when demolishing the bridge, the court disagreed, finding defendant's actions under the circumstances were unreasonable.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors:
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2022-10-24
Practice Area: Wrongful Death
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Allegheny County
Judge: Judge Hertzberg
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: GD 22-2730 772 WDA 2022
Court issued an opinion supporting its order which denied defendant's motion for stay of proceedings as well as for relief from judgment by default. Although defendant argued the court failed to properly apply the balancing test under Keesee v. Dougherty, the court ultimately went through each of the factors, finding that they weighed in favor of denying the motion and that the court committed no error. 230 A. 3d 1128 (Pa. Super 2020).
Publication Date: 2022-10-17
Practice Area: Litigation
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Allegheny County
Judge: Judge Hertzberg
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: GD 22-3585 760 WDA 2022
The court dismissed a civil action for breach of contract arising out of a divorce settlement that had been previously incorporated into the parties' divorce degree. The court noted that pursuant to local rules, once parties have a family law case assigned, actions arising out of disputes of those claims are properly adjudicated through the family law division rather than through a separate civil cause of action.
Publication Date: 2022-09-12
Practice Area: Civil Procedure
Industry: Accounting | Legal Services
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Allegheny County
Judge: Judge Hertzberg
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0896
Defendants were not required to file and serve the pleadings from a pending prior action before they could assert preliminary objections based on the prior pending action since the subject pleadings were public records that were readily accessible through the county's electronic docket. The court recommended affirmance.
Publication Date: 2022-09-05
Practice Area: Deals and Transactions
Industry: Energy | Real Estate
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Allegheny County
Judge: Judge Hertzberg
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0929
The statute of limitations on plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim did not begin to run until defendant began receiving payments for gas, oil and mineral rights that he fraudulently conveyed to himself, not when he recorded the deed that initiated the conveyance of those rights. The court recommended affirmance.
Publication Date: 2021-12-13
Practice Area: Real Estate
Industry: Real Estate
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Allegheny County
Judge: Judge Hertzberg
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-1369
In this review pursuant to Rule 1925(a), the court affirmed its decision in this property line dispute and ordered the removal and restoration of four feet of a path that encroached on plaintiffs' property. Affirmed.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read