• Stonekey Realty, LLC v. Cook

    Publication Date: 2023-01-30
    Practice Area: Civil Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lycoming County
    Judge: Judge Linhardt
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: CV-22-00677

    The court granted plaintiff's motion to dismiss appeal on the basis that defendant failed to comply with service requirements in violation of Pa.R.C.P.M.D.J. 1005. Although the court discussed that they had discretion to grant defendant's appeal upon a showing of good cause, they noted that defendant failed to plead any facts demonstrating good cause for missing the service timeline.

  • Xi v. Deegan

    Publication Date: 2022-12-19
    Practice Area: Civil Appeals
    Industry: Legal Services
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Cunningham
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 210900716

    Court affirmed decision dismissing appellant's complaint for failure to prosecute on the grounds that appellant repeatedly failed to respond to appellees' preliminary objections, filed multiple amended complaints, and failed to effectuate proper service of any of the complaints on appellees.

  • Atuahene v. Agondanou

    Publication Date: 2022-12-05
    Practice Area: Civil Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Schulman
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 1494 EDA 2022

    Court requested that the superior court affirm the court's previous order denying appellant's request for the court to open the judgment of non prosequi. The court found that appellant's request to reopen was not based on a meritorious claim because her initial complaint had been filed beyond the applicable statute of limitations. The court further found that appellant failed to offer a reasonable excuse as to why she failed to appear at trial.

  • Bank of Am. v. Davalos

    Publication Date: 2022-11-28
    Practice Area: Civil Appeals
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Real Estate
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Monroe County
    Judge: Judge Williamson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 3347 CIVIL 2022

    The court denied plaintiff's preliminary objection to defendant's counterclaim in an ejection matter. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed defendant's counterclaim did not stem from the foreclosure action and they were therefore precluded from requesting damages under Pa.R.C.P. 1148.

  • Tyler v. Hoover

    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.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Chester County Court Rules 2024

    Authors:

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • In re: Appeal of Clinkscale

    Publication Date: 2022-11-21
    Practice Area: Civil Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Patrick
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 806 CD 2022

    The court of common pleas dismissed appellant's appeal in this Right to Know Law dispute as she failed to properly prosecute the appeal in accordance with the court's prior orders despite being granted multiple extension in all of her six prior motions for extraordinary relief. The court recommended affirmance.

  • In re: Am. Network Ins. Co. (in Liquidation)

    Publication Date: 2022-11-07
    Practice Area: Civil Appeals
    Industry: Insurance
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Mundy
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 58 MAP 2021

    Appellant's notice of appeal from a commonwealth court panel's order was a timely appeal as of right from a final order in a declaratory judgment action, which triggered the jurisdictional limits imposed by 42 Pa.C.S. §5505. The high court affirmed.

  • Chatman v. Bayada Home Health Care, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2022-10-03
    Practice Area: Civil Appeals
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Patrick
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 1115 EDA 2022

    Plaintiff's challenges to an order denying her post-trial motions for relief were improper as those orders involved matters decided during pre-trial stages of the litigation, and the law of the case doctrine barred the appellate court from reopening questions decided during earlier stages of the litigation process. The court recommended affirmance.

  • City of Philadelphia v. Neely

    Publication Date: 2022-09-26
    Practice Area: Civil Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Younge
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 1293 CD 2019

    Court affirmed a trial court's award of statutory fines which cumulated due to several years' of daily non-compliance fines. Although appellant argued the fines were excessive and unwarranted, the court found that they were properly awarded under both the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions.

  • Haines v. Frank

    Publication Date: 2022-09-19
    Practice Area: Civil Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Crumlish
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 171202397

    Court denied plaintiff's appeal from an order denying post-trial relief where plaintiff argued the jury's lump sum award did not accurately consider his mental anguish. The court found plaintiff had voluntarily signed a jury slip agreeing to a lump sum award and therefore was precluded from arguing he disagreed with the division of the award. The court further found plaintiff had tactically chosen not to present evidence of his mental health at trial as he knew this would open him up to cross-examination on several issues that would u