Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
6 results for '* judge:"Judge Lindhart"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2024-10-25
Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
Industry: Health Care
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lycoming County
Judge: Judge Lindhart
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: CV 23-00, 923
Plaintiffs objected to certain new matter in defendants' answers to a medical malpractice action and court found one paragraph of the new matter, when read with another paragraph, properly asserted UPMC defendant had no control over doctor who allegedly caused plaintiff's injuries but the other paragraphs asserting affirmative defenses of contributory/comparative negligence, assumption of the risk, release, accord and satisfaction, or set-off and that plaintiffs' damages were caused by the natural progression of plaintiff's medical co
Publication Date: 2022-08-15
Practice Area: Personal Injury
Industry: Hospitality and Lodging
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lycoming County
Judge: Judge Lindhart
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0809
Court denied defendants' motion in limine seeking to exclude the expert testimony of plaintiff's medical doctor who was expected to testify as to the possibility that plaintiff would need medical care in the future. Although defendants argued that the "possibility" of medical care in the future was not admissible evidence, the court agreed with plaintiff that under Rule 223 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, the testimony was relevant to her claim for future noneconomic pain and suffering damages.
Publication Date: 2022-08-08
Practice Area: Family Law
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lycoming County
Judge: Judge Lindhart
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0840
Court denied a preliminary objection and request to dismiss a protection order where the defendant claimed the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him due to his residence in South Carolina. Although plaintiff resided with defendant in South Carolina for a majority of their marriage, they returned to Pennsylvania frequently, and even temporarily moved back at some point. The court found that under Pennsylvania's long-arm statute, defendant had sufficient minimum contacts within the state such that the court had personal jurisdicti
Publication Date: 2022-07-25
Practice Area: Personal Injury
Industry: Legal Services | Non-Profit
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lycoming County
Judge: Judge Lindhart
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0757
Court granted request to strike a previously stipulated discontinuance after learning that one of the defendant party's counsel erroneously signed the stipulation due to a clerical mistake.
Publication Date: 2022-07-04
Practice Area: Corporate Entities
Industry: Entertainment and Leisure
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lycoming County
Judge: Judge Lindhart
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0667
Court granted defendant's demurrer in a matter arising from plaintiff's dispute with his local little league charter. Although plaintiff argued defendant, Little League Baseball Inc., served as an agent for the charter, the court rejected these claims noting that the charter controlled their own day to day operations and had its own inherent authority to conduct themselves separate from that of defendant.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors:
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2022-06-27
Practice Area: Trusts and Estates
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lycoming County
Judge: Judge Lindhart
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0664
After reviewing ambiguous language in a testator's will that directed trust shares be distributed "in equal shares" to his two daughters and then upon their death, the remaining portions to their descendants, the probate court ordered trust distributions be distributed per stirpes in accordance with the "American Rule." The court reasoned that it could not infer that testator intended the shares to be distributed per capita because the language in the will did not specifically address "lineal descendants" of his two daughters nor did
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read