Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
10 results for '* judge:"Judge Hill"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2024-11-15
Practice Area: Education Law
Industry: Education
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Hill
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 09002
In this § 1925(a) opinion, the court requested that appellant's claims, in a case in which appellant was found to have sexually assaulted a fellow student when he squeezed her throat while kissing her, should be quashed or dismissed as untimely, waived, or lacking in merit.
Publication Date: 2024-09-27
Practice Area: Personal Injury
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Hill
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 02319
Appellant filed multiple appeals of various of the trial court's orders and an adverse jury verdict in his personal injury action against appellee. The court requested that the appeals be dismissed, holding in pertinent part that appellant's claims were waived for his failure to file a post-trial motion or to mention the issues in his 1925(b) statement. The court held further, that it did not err in granting a defense motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissing appellant's claims against appellee's wife where appellant alleged
Publication Date: 2024-03-08
Practice Area: Deals and Transactions
Industry: Real Estate
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Hill
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 02664
In a §1925(a) opinion, the court defended its order in an action to quiet title to property and requested that the appeal be dismissed.
Publication Date: 2023-10-30
Practice Area: Litigation
Industry: Financial Services and Banking
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Hill
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 02363
Appellant bank appealed the trial court's order denying its motion for summary judgment in a consumer fraud case brought by former residential mortgage borrowers. The court concluded that appellant was not entitled to relief on appeal where its asserted defenses of res judicata and collateral estoppel did not apply because the claims raised by appellees here were distinct from those presented in appellant's earlier action for residential foreclosure.
Publication Date: 2023-10-02
Practice Area: Real Estate
Industry: Real Estate
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Hill
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 00994
Appellants appealed a non-jury verdict favoring appellee in a lawsuit alleging various claims including fraud and breach of contract involving real property. However, the court found that, because appellants failed to provide the required Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of matters complained of on appeal, they waived all issues related to the judgment and award of damages and recommended that the matter be dismissed with prejudice.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors:
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
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.
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.
Publication Date: 2022-10-24
Practice Area: Damages
Industry: Construction
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Hill
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 2436 EDA 2021
Court found against defendants, who raised a statement of matters complained of on appeal challenging the trial court's orders and jury's verdict arising out of a trial for damages stemming from a home repair contract between the parties. Although defendant argued that the court erred in various aspects regarding expert witnesses, the court held that these were harmless errors which did not prevent defendant from presenting their case to the jury.
Publication Date: 2022-09-05
Practice Area: Civil Appeals
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Hill
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0901
Court ruled trial court's refusal to hear a motion in limine was not prejudicial and at worst resulted in harmless error. While the court did not conduct a hearing on the motion, they did make curative orders to counsel and the jury regarding the substantive request. The court further ruled the trial court's admittance of evidence, in the form of appellant's statements, was appropriately entered under several exceptions to the hearsay rule.
Publication Date: 2021-09-20
Practice Area: Civil Procedure
Industry: Construction
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Hill
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-0943
Discovery was not necessary to ascertain whether the corporate defendant's small amount of revenue derived from business in Philadelphia would qualify as "regularly conducting business activities," thereby subjecting the company to suit in Philadelphia County. The court recommended affirmance.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read