The court's order denying appellants' motion for recusal was interlocutory; the court would be able to consider the merits only after the trial court ruled on outstanding motions. Appeal quashed.
July 03, 2012 at 10:00 AM
1 minute read
SUPERIOR COURT
In re Bridgeport Fire Litigation, PICS Case No. 12-1199 (Pa. Super. unpublished memorandum June 20, 2012) Olson, J. (12 pages).
The court’s order denying appellants’ motion for recusal was interlocutory; the court would be able to consider the merits only after the trial court ruled on outstanding motions. Appeal quashed.
Presented by BigVoodoo
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Consulting Magazine recognizes leaders in technology across three categories Leadership, Client Service and Innovation.
Celebrate outstanding achievement in law firms, chambers, in-house legal departments and alternative business structures.
We are seeking an associate to join our Employee Benefits practice. Candidates should have three to six years of employee benefits experienc...
Associate attorney position at NJ Immigration Law firm: Leschak & Associates, LLC, based in Freehold, NJ, is looking for a full time ass...
Duane Morris LLP has an immediate opening for a senior level, highly motivated litigation associate to join its dynamic and growing Employme...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
