Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
92 results for '* court:"Courts of Common Pleas Montgomery County"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2022-11-14
Practice Area: Insurance Litigation
Industry: Insurance
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Montgomery County
Judge: Judge Rogers
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 2017-09856
Court found for insured plaintiffs against defendant insurance company finding that defendant acted in bad faith when they sought to modify the arbitrator's award following a binding arbitration between the parties. The court noted that defendant failed to inform plaintiffs of their intention to reserve the legal issue of stacking for appeal and acted with reckless disregard as to the arbitrator's award.
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.
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.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors:
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2022-08-22
Practice Area: Civil Appeals
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Montgomery County
Judge: Judge Rogers
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0868
Court requested the Superior Court dismiss appellant's appeal for failure to follow multiple Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, which, ultimately led to appellant's appeal being filed almost two years after the court had granted appellees' motions for summary judgment. In the alternative, the court requested the Superior Court affirm the summary judgment holding, as appellant's complaint was legally insufficient in that it argued facts not of record and only attached exhibits to a brief in opposition and brief seeking reconsiderat
Publication Date: 2022-08-15
Practice Area: Attorney Compensation
Industry: Construction | Legal Services
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Montgomery County
Judge: Judge Rogers
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0812
While a court may take judicial notice that navigating through certain legal proceedings may involve a specialized area of the law, the record herein contained insufficient evidence to support taxation of legal research at the rate invoiced; therefore, the court reduced the recoverable hourly rate sought. The court awarded garnishees attorney fees.
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: 2022-07-25
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