The ruling opens an avenue for certain businesses to argue they do not conduct enough business in a particular county to be sued there—a defense that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s November decision in Hangey v. Husqvarna made more difficult to make.
January 16, 2024 at 04:52 PM
3 minute read
Litigation Reporter
A decision from the Pennsylvania Superior Court marked a win for business defendants in the wake of a high court ruling that dealt a blow to their ability to challenge a plaintiff’s choice of venue.
The Superior Court’s Jan. 12 opinion in Watson v. Baby Trend established that the analysis of where a company does regular business should not include sales of the company’s products made by big-box stores like Target or Walmart.
Phila. Jury Hands Up $6.1M Verdict to Crushed Worker Despite Plaintiff's 'Nuclear' Settlement Demand
Presented by BigVoodoo
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
Consulting Magazine recognizes leaders in technology across three categories Leadership, Client Service and Innovation.
Truly exceptional Bergen County New Jersey Law Firm is growing and seeks strong plaintiff's personal injury Attorney with 5-7 years plaintif...
Atlanta s John Marshall Law School is seeking to hire one or more full-time, visiting Legal WritingInstructors to teach Legal Research, Anal...
Shipman is seeking an associate to join our Labor & Employment practice in our Hartford, New Haven, or Stamford office. Candidates shou...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
The Superior Court’s ruling addressed how a company’s sales at big box retailers like Target and Walmart should be weighed in venue analysis. Credit: MichaelVi/Adobe Stock
