Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
108 results for '* topic:"Civil Appeals"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2022-09-26
Practice Area: Civil Appeals
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Younge
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 1293 CD 2019
Court affirmed a trial court's award of statutory fines which cumulated due to several years' of daily non-compliance fines. Although appellant argued the fines were excessive and unwarranted, the court found that they were properly awarded under both the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions.
Publication Date: 2022-09-19
Practice Area: Civil Appeals
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Crumlish
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 171202397
Court denied plaintiff's appeal from an order denying post-trial relief where plaintiff argued the jury's lump sum award did not accurately consider his mental anguish. The court found plaintiff had voluntarily signed a jury slip agreeing to a lump sum award and therefore was precluded from arguing he disagreed with the division of the award. The court further found plaintiff had tactically chosen not to present evidence of his mental health at trial as he knew this would open him up to cross-examination on several issues that would u
Publication Date: 2022-09-05
Practice Area: Civil Appeals
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Hill
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0901
Court ruled trial court's refusal to hear a motion in limine was not prejudicial and at worst resulted in harmless error. While the court did not conduct a hearing on the motion, they did make curative orders to counsel and the jury regarding the substantive request. The court further ruled the trial court's admittance of evidence, in the form of appellant's statements, was appropriately entered under several exceptions to the hearsay rule.
Publication Date: 2022-08-30
Practice Area: Civil Appeals
Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Entertainment and Leisure | Real Estate
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Krause
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: D69941
Court dismissed appellant's claim under the Helms-Burton Act arguing that he was the beneficiary of property seized during the Castro Regime.
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
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Joseph S. Britton
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2022-08-01
Practice Area: Civil Appeals
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Campbell
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0786
Court denied defendant's post-verdict motions challenging the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial as well as a post-verdict order correcting the awarded damages to the plaintiff. Specifically, the court noted defendant failed to properly preserve their arguments for appeal. The court further noted the need to correct the awarded verdict was due to a clerical oversight and cited precedent allowing the court to exercise its discretion to correct the record to properly reflect the amount of the awarded verdict.
Publication Date: 2022-08-01
Practice Area: Civil Appeals
Industry: Construction | Real Estate
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Patrick
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0785
Court denied appeal asserting the trial court improperly granted a preliminary injunction halting the demolition of a historic property. Though appellants argued service was improper, the court reviewed the record and determined several facts demonstrating appellants received actual, proper notice of the hearing. Furthermore, although appellants argued appellees failed to show irreparable harm, the court noted the evidence presented at the hearing was sufficient to determine irreparable harm would result to the property.
Publication Date: 2022-08-01
Practice Area: Civil Appeals
Industry: Financial Services and Banking
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Monroe County
Judge: Judge Williamson
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0789
Court denied plaintiff's motion to reinstate appeal where plaintiff failed to provide timely service of the notice and proof of service. While the court noted that under normal circumstances, they could use their discretion to waive the issue should counsel show compelling cause, the court explained plaintiff provided no reason, let alone a good cause, for why the documents were not timely served.
Publication Date: 2022-07-18
Practice Area: Civil Appeals
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Chester County
Judge: Judge Mahon
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0726
Court denied defendants' motion for reconsideration and a trial on damages in a wrongful death trial due to defense counsel's multiple failures to make timely objections on the record prior to the close of trial and prior to dismissing the jury. Although defendants raised multiple arguments regarding the weight of evidence presented at trial and the instructions delivered to the jury, the court noted that counsel failed to make these arguments and therefore failed to preserve the issues for appeal. Motions for reconsideration, denied.
Publication Date: 2022-06-13
Practice Area: Civil Appeals
Industry: Financial Services and Banking
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Wright-Padilla
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0556
The discovery order that the intervenor sought to challenge on appeal was an interlocutory order not immediately appealable because the order, which granted the defendant a protective order from subpoenas, did not dispose of the litigation. The court of common pleas recommended affirmance.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read