Filter This View

  • Jarzyna v. Home Props., L.P.

    Publication Date: 2018-09-11
    Practice Area: Landlord Tenant Law
    Industry: Real Estate
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Robeno
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1077

    Landlord not entitled to damages for utilities and late and administrative fees where it failed to authenticate its statement of charges for admission into evidence. Judgment entered in favor of counterclaimant.

  • Hackett v. Indian King Residents Ass'n

    Publication Date: 2018-09-11
    Practice Area: Premises Liability
    Industry: Hospitality and Lodging
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Shogan
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1080

    Resident of homeowners' association had status of licensee rather than invitee in the association's common areas where declaration of association granted all residents permission to use the common areas. Judgment affirmed.

  • Mercurio v. Louisville Ladder, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-09-11
    Practice Area: Evidence | Occupational Safety and Health | Products Liability
    Industry: Manufacturing
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Middle
    Judge: District Judge Mariani
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1082

    Defendant made a motion in limine to preclude plaintiff's expert in plaintiff's action asserting a design defect in a ladder caused him to fall and the court found that expert's "simulated use test", though simplistic in nature, was sufficiently reliable to justify admission at trial because the issue was relatively well-defined, the testing process would be readily comprehensible to a jury and issues such as the number of tests performed and the technician's arm movements while performing the tests could be adequately explored during

  • Burgauer v. Mike Perrotta Contractor, LLC

    Publication Date: 2018-09-11
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
    Industry: Manufacturing
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
    Judge: Judge Hodge
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1038

    The court dismissed a third party complaint by a roofing contractor against the manufacturer of roofing shingles. The warranty provision for the shingles in question applied only to the owner of the home on which the shingles were installed, and not to the contractor who installed the shingles.

  • Jones v. Ott

    Publication Date: 2018-09-11
    Practice Area: Civil Procedure | Motor Vehicle Torts
    Industry: Automotive
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Wecht
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1057

    Challenge to jury charge waived where litigant failed to obtain record ruling on proposed charge and explicitly advised trial court that litigant had no objection to jury charge given by the trial court. Order of the superior court affirmed.

  • Moss v. SCI- Mahanoy Superintendent

    Publication Date: 2018-09-11
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Covey
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1085

    Trial court properly denied inmate's habeas petition asserting the board improperly detained him when it lodged a detainer against him that prevented his release on bail after he was arrested on new criminal charges because the board did not admit his averments, aggregation of consecutive sentences was automatic and mandatory, parole was not automatic and his challenge to the sentence imposed more than 20 years earlier was untimely. Affirmed.

  • Walney v. SWEPI LP

    Publication Date: 2018-09-11
    Practice Area: Class Actions | Energy and Natural Resources
    Industry: Mining and Resources
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Western
    Judge: District Judge Conti
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1079

    Defendant sought reconsideration of the judgment holding that its mineral rights lease agreements with plaintiff class members were en-forceable contracts but it failed to produce evidence that the class members intended to incorporate into the document defendant's inter-pretation of the "no liability" clause or were even aware of such interpretation. Motion denied.

  • In the Interest of: M.W., a minor

    Publication Date: 2018-09-11
    Practice Area: Criminal Law | Evidence | Family Law
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Stevens
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1076

    Motion to suppress evidence seized from vehicle glove compartment denied where police were statutorily authorized to seize vehicle and conduct inventory search for ownership documents after discovering mismatched license plate and VINs. Dispositional order affirmed.

  • T.D. v. E.D.

    Publication Date: 2018-09-11
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Stevens
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1084

    Trial court properly denied father's motions to suppress mother's brief and to modify custody to allow eight-year-old child to fly as an un-accompanied minor because trial court did not err by not interviewing child and did not abuse its discretion in considering "real world scenarios" or "common sense" in considering that planes could malfunction or be delayed and that airline personnel had duties other than checking on unaccompanied minors. Affirmed.

  • In re: Petition of A.M.M.

    Publication Date: 2018-09-11
    Practice Area: Administrative Law | Civil Procedure
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Dubow
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1074

    Petition for expungement of record of involuntary commitment that challenged sufficiency of evidence supporting commitment properly dismissed under doctrine of laches where passage of significant period of time made evidence impossible to obtain. Order of the trial court affirmed.