Filter This View

  • Perez v. Mathis et al

    Publication Date: 2018-10-02
    Practice Area: Legal Malpractice
    Industry: Legal Services
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Monroe County
    Judge: Judge Williamson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1118

    The court allowed plaintiff to present a claim for lost punitive damages in this legal malpractice suit where he was successful in an underlying lawsuit with substitute counsel and may have recovered on a bad faith claim in that suit but for counsel's alleged negligence in withdrawing it. The court denied defendants' preliminary objections.

  • S.W. v. S.F.

    Publication Date: 2018-10-02
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Bender
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1178

    The trial court properly conducted an ex parte proceeding pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.§6107(b)(1) where a minor child's father petitioned for a temporary protection from abuse order alleging immediate and present danger of abuse to his minor daughter from the child's mother. The appellate court affirmed an order granting a protection from abuse order.

  • In re: Hertz Global Holdings Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-10-01
    Practice Area: Securities Litigation
    Industry:
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Justice Jordan
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Evan J. Kaufman and Samuel H. Rudman (Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd); Douglas S. Wilens (Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd); Peter S. Pearlman (Cohn Lifland Pearlman Hermann & Knopf)
    for defendant: Ross B. Bricker and Howard S. Suskin (Jenner & Block); Adam G. Unikowsky (Jenner & Block); Kevin H. Marino and John D. Tortorella (Marino, Tortorella & Boyle); David A. Kotler (Dechert); Andrew J. Levander (Dechert); Elliot Greenfield, Maeve L. O'Connor, and Edwin G. Schallert (Debevoise & Plimpton); Gregory A. Markel and Heather E. Murray (Seyfarth Shaw)
    Case Number: 17-2200

    Securities Fraud Action Dismissed Where Scienter Evidence Demonstrated Corporate Mismanagement Rather than Misconduct

  • Gregg v. Ameriprise Fin., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-09-25
    Practice Area: Consumer Protection | Dispute Resolution | Insurance Law
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Consulting | Insurance
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Kunselman
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1147

    Trial judge properly made a separate finding of fact in appellees' Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law action against insurance companies after the jury returned a defense verdict on the common law claims of fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation because common law misrepresentations and UTPCPL catchall violations presented distinct legal issues. Affirmed.

  • Commonwealth v. Crissman

    Publication Date: 2018-09-25
    Practice Area: Constitutional Law | Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Olson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1136

    The trial court did not err in imposing separate sentences for defendant's first and second-degree murder convictions since all the statutory elements of one of the offenses were not included in the statutory elements of the other offense. The appellate court affirmed defendant's judgment of sentence.

  • Silvestri v. Jeanes Hosp.

    Publication Date: 2018-09-25
    Practice Area: Administrative Law | Government | Personal Injury
    Industry: Health Care | State and Local Government
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge New
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1096

    The Court of Common Pleas requested that the Commonwealth Court reverse a decision dismissing plaintiffs' claims based on governmental immunity, because of a recent decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court which overruled a case which held the motor vehicle exception to governmental immunity did not apply when a vehicle was parked.

  • Smoak v. Talaber

    Publication Date: 2018-09-25
    Practice Area: Administrative Law | Criminal Law
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Leavitt
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1142

    Although parole board erred in failing to record reason for denying street time credit in its initial recommitment order, such error was harmless where it modified the order upon offender's administrative petition for review to include a sufficient statement of the reason for the denial of credit. Order of the parole board affirmed.

  • Lupu v. Loan City, LLC

    Publication Date: 2018-09-25
    Practice Area: Contracts | Creditors' and Debtors' Rights | Insurance Law
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Insurance | Real Estate
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Circuit Judge Ambro
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1137

    Pennsylvania law applied the "four corners" rule to determine insurer's duty to defend but would not apply complete defense rule to title insurance policies, which only covered a limited scope of claims. Order of the district court affirmed in part and reversed in part, case remanded.

  • Commonwealth v. Andrews

    Publication Date: 2018-09-25
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Lazarus
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1133

    While defendant was convicted and sentenced prior to the date the U.S. Supreme Court decided U.S. v. Alleyne, he was entitled to resentencing under Alleyne where, due to his first Post Conviction Relief Act petition, defendant received reinstatement of his appellate rights and those rights were not resolved prior to the announcement of Alleyne. The appellate court affirmed an order granting defendant relief.

  • Rose Gold LLC v. PayActiv, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-09-25
    Practice Area: Contracts | Dispute Resolution
    Industry: Consulting
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Pappert
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1144

    Plaintiff moved for summary judgment, defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff's breach of contract claim and trial judge denied both motions because while the "initial statement of work" exchanged by the parties contained sufficiently definite terms and plaintiff's allegations that defendant made consistent monthly payments for five months were sufficient to allege an implied contract, summary judgment was premature since there had been no discovery in the case. Motions denied.