Filter This View

  • Adkins v. Johnson & Johnson

    Publication Date: 2020-04-27
    Practice Area: Civil Procedure
    Industry: Health Care | Manufacturing
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Ford Elliott
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0426

    Plaintiff's inconsistent verdict challenge could not be corrected in pre-trial proceedings or during trial and only ripened after the verdict was announced; therefore, she properly raised the challenge for the first time in a post-trial motion. The superior court affirmed a trial court order granting plaintiff a new trial.

  • Brophy v. Belfi

    Publication Date: 2020-04-27
    Practice Area: Civil Procedure
    Industry: Real Estate
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Padilla
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0354

    Where defendant failed to file post-trial motions after the trial court entered an order in favor of plaintiff in this non-jury trial case and failed to file a Pa.R.App.P. 1925(b) statement as directed, he waived any issues for appellate review. The court recommended affirmance.

  • Morrone v. Route 65 Auto, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2020-04-13
    Practice Area: Civil Procedure
    Industry: Automotive
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
    Judge: Judge Cox
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0303

    The court of common pleas refused to rule on this matter given an automatic stay that went into effective upon a debtor's bankruptcy filing since a judgment in this case, brought against a third party based upon alleged successor liability, would in effect be a judgment against the debtor. The court held defendants' preliminary objection in abeyance.

  • Keesee v. Dougherty

    Publication Date: 2020-03-30
    Practice Area: Civil Procedure
    Industry: Construction
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Olson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0347

    Trial court erred in denying defendants' motion to stay plaintiff's civil action for damages because trial court did not weigh all six of the factors in In re Adelphia Communications Sec. Litig., 2003 WL 22358819, before deciding to deny the motion to stay. Order vacated, remanded.

  • Cardona v. Buchanan

    Publication Date: 2020-03-23
    Practice Area: Civil Procedure
    Industry: Retail
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Stabile
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0309

    Where the trial court entered a judgment of non-pros due to plaintiff's failure to prosecute her suit and plaintiff failed to file a petition to open before appealing, she waived the single issue raised in her appellate brief. The superior court affirmed.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    New York Employment Law 2023

    Authors: Daniel A. Cohen, Joshua Feinstein

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • In re P.M.

    Publication Date: 2020-03-23
    Practice Area: Civil Procedure
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Bender
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0322

    Trial court properly denied appellant's petition to expunge his §302 commitment on statute of limitations grounds because an expungement petition filed under 18 Pa.C.S. §6111.1(g)(2) was a civil action subject to a six-year statute of limitations. Affirmed.

  • Bertles v. The Cycle Group

    Publication Date: 2020-03-16
    Practice Area: Civil Procedure
    Industry: Distribution and Wholesale | Manufacturing
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Schiller
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0280

    The record did not support a finding of specific personal jurisdiction over the third-party defendant, even presuming the viability of the stream of commerce theory, since a nonresident defendant contracting with a resident distributor is insufficient to establish specific jurisdiction under this theory. The court granted third-party defendant's motion to dismiss.

  • First Am. Title Ins. Co. v. Mountain Lakes Abstract Co. Inc.

    Publication Date: 2020-03-09
    Practice Area: Civil Procedure
    Industry: Real Estate
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Monroe County
    Judge: Judge Zulick
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0175

    Plaintiff complied with a court order calling for more specificity in its breach of contract complaint, which challenged several of defendants' transactions, where the new complaint identified by reference a list of transactions which formed the basis of its suit. The court overruled defendants' preliminary objections.

  • Berk v. Equifax, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2020-03-09
    Practice Area: Civil Procedure
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Diamond
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0251

    While expressing misgivings about the viability of Bane v. Netlink, Inc., the court of common pleas followed that case and held that by producing registrations authorizing the defendant corporations to do business in Pennsylvania, plaintiffs made a sufficient showing that the court had general jurisdiction over them. The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss but granted a motion to transfer.

  • Haynes v. Johnson Contracting

    Publication Date: 2020-03-02
    Practice Area: Civil Procedure
    Industry: Construction
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Johnson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0148

    The court denied plaintiff's request for post-trial relief where she failed to comply with Pa.R.Civ.P. 227.1(b) by raising her stated grounds for relief in pre-trial proceedings or other proper method at trial and by specifying the method in her motion for relief. The court recommended affirmance of its order denying plaintiff's post-trial motion.