• Commonwealth v. Brothers

    Publication Date: 2022-08-22
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
    Judge: Judge Hodge
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-0875

    Court granted criminal defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during a warrantless search of a vehicle. The court noted that although the officer conducting the search had probable cause to search the vehicle for drug paraphernalia, no exigent circumstances existed because the occupants had exited the vehicle and were not able to destroy any potential evidence at the time of the search. Therefore, because the warrantless search was not predicated on both probable cause and exigent circumstances, the search violated defendant

  • Commonwealth v. Donafrio

    Publication Date: 2022-08-15
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
    Judge: Judge Hodge
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-0215

    The court refused to suppress evidence of drug sales activity found by police in plain view in defendant's hotel room where police entered the room at defendant's request during a mere encounter, which did not afford defendant any protection upon which he could base a claim of a warrantless search. The court denied defendant's motion to suppress.

  • Rice v. Damron

    Publication Date: 2022-06-20
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Real Estate
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
    Judge: Judge Hodge
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-0581

    An agreement did not possess the characteristics of an installment land contract, so the court granted declaratory relief stating that the parties' agreement was a residential lease which was subject to landlord tenant law.

  • O'Brien v. McQueen

    Publication Date: 2022-05-30
    Practice Area: Real Estate
    Industry: Real Estate
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
    Judge: Judge Hodge
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-0502

    The court refused to strike plaintiffs' negligence claims based on the gist of the action doctrine since the Home Inspection Law creates a duty on behalf of a home inspector, thereby creating a relationship between the parties during which the tort of negligence was allegedly committed. The court denied defendant's preliminary objections in part.

  • Schmidt v. Schmidt

    Publication Date: 2022-05-30
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
    Judge: Judge Hodge
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-0496

    Defendant failed to inform plaintiff or the domestic relations section of a change in circumstances relevant to support in writing or by personal appearance as required by 23 Pa.C.S. §4353(a), thus warranting retroactive modification of plaintiff's spousal award. The court granted plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Delaware County Court Rules 2024

    Authors:

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Castle Realty, LLC v. Paul Lynch Inv., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2022-05-30
    Practice Area: Civil Procedure
    Industry: Real Estate
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas
    Judge: Judge Hodge
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-0500

    The court denied defendant's motion for reconsideration as untimely since a trial court may consider such a motion only if it is filed within 30 days of the entry of the disputed order, while also noting that the mere filing of a motion for reconsideration is insufficient to toll the appeal period. The court recommend affirmance.

  • Noga v. Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P.

    Publication Date: 2022-05-09
    Practice Area: Personal Injury
    Industry: Retail
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
    Judge: Judge Hodge
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-0413

    Defendant was not entitled to summary relief in this premises liability suit as there was sufficient evidence of record, including a store manager's deposition testimony regarding an alleged crack in the sidewalk where plaintiff fell, for a jury to conclude that a crack in the pavement was the cause of plaintiff's fall. The court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment.

  • Velocity Magnetics, Inc. v. Marzano

    Publication Date: 2022-05-02
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Manufacturing
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
    Judge: Judge Hodge
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-0375

    The court lacked authority to modify a consent order entered into by agreement of the parties where defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into that consent order, and that order's validity did not hinge upon the status of the parties' separate and underlying agreement. The court denied defendant's petition to modify a consent order.

  • Nigon v. Jewell

    Publication Date: 2022-05-02
    Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
    Judge: Judge Hodge
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-0377

    Defendants were entitled to summary relief in this medical malpractice suit brought by the decedent's administratrix because there was no factual support for her expert's opinion that there was a causal connection between the defendant doctor's alleged negligence and the decedent's post-surgical death. The court denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.

  • Burgauer v. Mike Perrotta Contractor, LLC

    Publication Date: 2022-05-02
    Practice Area: Corporate Entities
    Industry: Construction
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
    Judge: Judge Hodge
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-0376

    The court refused to pierce the corporate veil of the defendant limited liability company in order to hold the individual defendant's wife liable for alleged breach of contract given the parameters of §8834 of Pennsylvania's Limited Liability Statute as well as the strong presumption against piercing the corporate veil. The court denied plaintiff's motion for leave to join a party.