• Smith v. CMS W., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2022-12-19
    Practice Area: Personal Injury
    Industry: Manufacturing
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Shreeves-Johns
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 02048

    Court affirmed a decision granting a motion to transfer venue under Pa.R.C.P. 1006(d)(1) on the grounds that the former venue was oppressive to several of the witnesses who did not reside within the county and would have to travel several hours for depositions, trials, etc. The court further rejected appellant's arguments that the court did not allow the parties to engage in enough discovery related to the issue of venue selection finding that appellants were allowed to submit several affidavits to the court regarding venue selection.

  • Monroe v. CBH2O

    Publication Date: 2022-12-12
    Practice Area: Personal Injury
    Industry: Entertainment and Leisure
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Per Curiam
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 1862 EDA 2019

    Plaintiff appealed the grant of summary judgment to defendant in her personal injury action and court found plaintiff sufficiently pled the state of mind of recklessness to defeat defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings and evidence of record created genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment. Reversed.

  • Evilsizor v. SEPTA

    Publication Date: 2022-12-12
    Practice Area: Personal Injury
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Younge
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 00514

    Plaintiff could not sustain her personal injury action against defendant, a commonwealth agency, where she failed to meet her burden on causation and failed to demonstrate that defendant negligently maintained the highway where she fell off her bicycle by allowing a pothole or dangerous condition to exist. The trial court recommended affirmance.

  • Millard v. Yassen Assocs., LLC

    Publication Date: 2022-12-12
    Practice Area: Personal Injury
    Industry:
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Padova
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-694

    Injured plaintiff could pursue individual liability against LLC members after the LLC was dissolved following notice of plaintiff's claim, and where plaintiff alleged that members failed to respect the corporate form and treated the LLC as a mere shell to avoid liability. Defendants' motion to dismiss denied.

  • Zakrie v. LiSec Am., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2022-12-05
    Practice Area: Personal Injury
    Industry: Manufacturing
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Western
    Judge: District Judge Kelly
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-684

    Third-party defendant glass company moved to dismiss defendant's contractual indemnification and defense claim in plaintiff's personal injury action and court found defendant's and third party defendant's agreement to arbitrate did not establish that venue was improper and defendant's third-party contractual indemnity claim against glass company involved a common nucleus of operative fact with plaintiff's underlying claims. Motion denied.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    New Jersey Employment Law 2024

    Authors: Rosemary Alito

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Tyler v. Hoover

    Publication Date: 2022-12-05
    Practice Area: Personal Injury
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Hill
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 06965

    Court denied plaintiff's cross-appeal for delay damages on the basis that plaintiff failed to produce any evidence of how they arrived at their delay damages calculation. The court further noted that plaintiff failed to identify any delays which were attributable to defendant's conduct but instead found that the lengthy delay in the pre-trial history of the case was partially plaintiff's fault because plaintiff had failed to adhere to several discovery timelines.

  • Myrick v. Hall

    Publication Date: 2022-11-21
    Practice Area: Personal Injury
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Shreeves-Johns
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 00794

    The court affirmed the trial court's order granting a motion to dismiss and denying a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. The court focused on the fact that although appellant knew they had named the wrong party in the complaint's caption, they did not seek to cure this defect until after the applicable statute of limitations had passed. Accordingly, the court noted that the trial court did not err or abuse their discretion.

  • Grady v. Nelson

    Publication Date: 2022-11-14
    Practice Area: Personal Injury
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Stabile
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 2115 EDA 2021

    Sheriff's return of service indicating the non-existence of an address was conclusive on its face to render a petition to strike or open default judgment meritorious as it was apparent that defendant was not afforded notice of the proceedings. Order of the trial court reversed, case remanded.

  • Cimbat v. Old Navy LLC

    Publication Date: 2022-11-14
    Practice Area: Personal Injury
    Industry: Retail
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Beetlestone
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 21-2657

    Plaintiff could pursue premises liability claims where there was triable issue regarding whether store had sufficient protection for plaintiff after she credibly accused another customer of shoplifting. Defendant's motion for summary judgment denied in part and granted in part.

  • Ritchey v. Rutter's Inc.

    Publication Date: 2022-11-07
    Practice Area: Personal Injury
    Industry: Food and Beverage | Retail
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Lazarus
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 2219 EDA 2020

    Trial court properly denied defendants' motion to transfer venue on the basis of forum non conveniens because, while defendant showed inconvenience, there was no showing of oppressiveness and trial court's decision did not rise to the level of overriding or misapplying the law and was not manifestly unreasonable. Affirmed.