• Butterworth v. Howard

    Publication Date: 2024-07-05
    Practice Area: Damages
    Industry: Retail
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Chester County
    Judge: Judge Binder
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 2019-02018-TT

    Plaintiff moved to mold a jury verdict to include pre-judgment interest. The court denied the motion where uncertainties regarding defendants' ultimate liability to plaintiff precluded a pre-judgment interest award, and where no such award was required in the interests of justice.

  • Porter v. Voelkl

    Publication Date: 2024-06-21
    Practice Area: Damages
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Monroe County
    Judge: Judge Zulick
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 2341 CV 2022

    The court entered an award of negligence damages in favor of plaintiff after he suffered a dog attack and obtained default judgment against the dog's owners. Based upon evidence that included plaintiff's medical history and the opinion testimony of plaintiff's expert medical witness, the court awarded plaintiff some $500,000 for pain and suffering, loss of earnings or earning capacity, and future loss of earnings or earning capacity.

  • Pruette v. Egan-Jones Ratings Co.

    Publication Date: 2024-05-24
    Practice Area: Damages
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Schmehl
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 18-3734

    Plaintiffs sought summary judgment on the issue of damages in their breach of contract action against defendant. The court granted the motion to the extent plaintiffs sought recovery of past unpaid commissions on the basis of a self-generated accounting report that calculated the commissions due. The court denied the motion to the extent plaintiffs sought lost future commissions because the calculation of such commissions was properly the subject of expert testimony.

  • Ransom v. ICTV Brands, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2024-05-03
    Practice Area: Damages
    Industry: Advertising
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Djerassi
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 1597

    Prevailing plaintiff appealed the court's damages award in his action alleging wrongful termination and defamation. The court concluded that its judgment in favor of plaintiff should be affirmed where plaintiff was not entitled to special actual damages on his defamation claim absent evidence of actual economic loss due to defendant's defamatory statement in a report to the federal Securities and Exchange Commission.

  • Tomasko v. Citrin, Cooperman & Co.

    Publication Date: 2024-04-26
    Practice Area: Damages
    Industry: Accounting | Legal Services
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Erdos
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 220201441

    Appellant appealed the court's order finding in favor of appellees in his action to recover amounts allegedly due after an independent accounting conducted pursuant to a pretrial settlement of a business dispute. The court requested that its order be affirmed where the independent accountant's report failed to state that specific parties owed specific amounts to other specific parties and thus appellant failed to support his claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Chester County Court Rules 2024

    Authors:

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Vega v. Jones

    Publication Date: 2024-03-22
    Practice Area: Damages
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Monroe County
    Judge: Judge Higgins
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 2827-CV-2020

    Prevailing plaintiff appealed the court's order molding her jury verdict to include delay damages. On remand from the Superior Court, the court re-calculated plaintiff's delay damages and entered its award accordingly.

  • Davis v. Solaris Oilfield Site Serv. Personnel, LLC

    Publication Date: 2024-02-02
    Practice Area: Damages
    Industry: Energy | Recruitment and Staffing
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Western
    Judge: District Judge Colville
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 2:19-cv-00627-RJC J.

    Court declined to grant a motion for punitive damages in the form of a summary judgment motion where there were genuine issues of material fact as to defendants' culpability for a fatal motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff's motion granted in part and denied in part.

  • Bah v. United States

    Publication Date: 2024-02-02
    Practice Area: Damages
    Industry: Automotive | Federal Government | Retail | State and Local Government
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Circuit Judge Porter
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-3162

    Federal government had not waived sovereign immunity for alleged personal injury or loss arising from the government's detention or forfeiture of money. Order of the district court affirmed.

  • Bartlett v. Demich

    Publication Date: 2024-01-08
    Practice Area: Damages
    Industry: Non-Profit
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge McLaughlin
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 446 MDA 2023

    Trial court correctly dismissed replevin action over domestic animal where the record conclusively showed that an animal rescue organization placed the animal with plaintiff in a foster arrangement and retained legal title to the animal. Order of the trial court affirmed.

  • Sewell v. Riordon Materials Corp.

    Publication Date: 2023-11-27
    Practice Area: Damages
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Kennedy
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 01642

    Appellants filed a motion for delay damages pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 283(a)(1), but the court found that the trial court erred when it denied the motion since neither of the two exceptions under subsection (b)(1) were established. The court requested that its order denying appellants' motion be vacated or reversed and that the case be remanded for further proceedings.