Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
50 results for '* judge:"Judge Saltz"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2023-01-09
Practice Area: Fee Disputes
Industry: Real Estate
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Montgomery County
Judge: Judge Saltz
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 2018-23317
The court affirmed the trial court's rulings granting only part of plaintiff's request for fees appropriate under 68 Pa.C.S. §5412 requirements. The court further found that the trial court appropriately exercised its discretion to deny defendant attorney fees because defendant failed to demonstrate that they were entitled to fees.
Publication Date: 2022-12-19
Practice Area: Real Estate
Industry: Real Estate
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Montgomery County
Judge: Judge Saltz
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 2017-03442
While defendant's proposed remedy for the abatement of water flow from his property to plaintiffs' property was arguably inadequate to abate excess water runoff, it was more closely tailored to the extent of the actionable conduct than plaintiffs' suggestion, which went beyond the modification necessary to address the impact of the conduct at issue. The court recommended affirmance.
Publication Date: 2022-11-07
Practice Area: Public Records
Industry: Health Care | State and Local Government
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Montgomery County
Judge: Judge Saltz
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 2021-17222
The court ordered respondent county to disclose an agreement pertaining to a contract with the county's behavioral health managed care organization. Although respondents argued that they did not have to disclose this information because it was considered trade secrets under the Right-to-Know Law, the court disagreed noting that it did not discuss trade secrets.
Publication Date: 2022-11-07
Practice Area: Creditors' and Debtors' Rights
Industry: Financial Services and Banking
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Montgomery County
Judge: Judge Saltz
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 2014-04007
Defendants were not entitled to post-trial relief in this mortgage foreclosure action as their purported evidence of fraud, i.e., plaintiff's failure to attach the correct indorsement of transfer, suggested an inattention to detail rather than fraud. The court recommended affirmance of its order denying defendants' post-trial motion.
Publication Date: 2022-09-12
Practice Area: Civil Procedure
Industry: Financial Services and Banking
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Montgomery County
Judge: Judge Saltz
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0894
The court refused to grant plaintiff relief from the termination of this case pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 230.2(d)(3) as plaintiff's counsel failed to offer a reasonable explanation or a legitimate excuse for failing to take the required actions under the rule in this mortgage foreclosure suit commenced more than 22 years ago. The court recommended affirmance.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Joseph S. Britton
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2022-08-29
Practice Area: Election and Political Law
Industry: Education | Non-Profit | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Montgomery County
Judge: Judge Saltz
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0926
Defendants' on-line article, which made certain assertions of fact and purported to connect the dots to reach the conclusion that the plaintiff political action committee was a "dark money" organization and a "front group" for right-wing extremists, constituted political opinion and was not, therefore, actionable as defamatory. The court sustained defendants' preliminary objections.
Publication Date: 2022-08-01
Practice Area: Consumer Protection
Industry: Education
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Montgomery County
Judge: Judge Saltz
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0782
Plaintiff failed to state a claim under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law against the defendant school as the record made clear that his parents were the "purchasers" of services from the private school, not plaintiff. The court recommended affirmance of its order dismissing the complaint.
Publication Date: 2022-08-01
Practice Area: Government
Industry: State and Local Government
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Saltz
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0784
The court denied an emergency motion to stay the City of Philadelphia's reinstatement of an indoor mask mandate given that the Philadelphia Code specifically provides for the suspension of the Home Rule Charter's normal regulatory process in the event of public health and safety emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The court recommended affirmance.
Publication Date: 2022-07-25
Practice Area: Dispute Resolution
Industry: Construction
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Montgomery County
Judge: Judge Saltz
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0759
The court refused to invalidate an arbitration award in favor of a bankruptcy debtor where an arbitration claim was brought in the name of the debtor rather than its disbursing agent since this alleged defect was, at most, a simple misnomer rather than a fundamental flaw that would prevent enforcement of the arbitration agreement. The court recommended affirmance.
Publication Date: 2022-07-25
Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
Industry: Construction | Real Estate
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Montgomery County
Judge: Judge Saltz
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0761
Court denied request to order alternative remedies or equitable remedies in a breach of contract claim between brothers. The court noted the contract clearly and unambiguously provided for the proper remedy in the operating agreement and although plaintiff sought "monetary" damages arising from the breach, plaintiff failed to calculate a demand and even informed the court that arriving at such a number was "difficult to calculate." Accordingly, the court noted plaintiff's sought remedies were disproportionate to the harm suffered and
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read