• NAPA Dev. Corp., Inc. v. Estate of Weedo

    Publication Date: 2020-11-16
    Practice Area: Damages
    Industry: Construction
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Monroe County
    Judge: Judge Williamson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 20-1149

    Plaintiff adequately stated a claim for special relief based on equitable subrogation, so the court overruled defendant's preliminary objections.

  • Rogowski v. Harrison House Personal Care Home

    Publication Date: 2020-11-16
    Practice Area: Damages
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County
    Judge: Judge Nealon
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 20-1151

    Decedent's Social Security benefits representative payee could not be held liable in negligence for injuries she suffered when sexually assaulted by another resident of the care home where she lived, as the representative owed decedent no common law duty of care upon which to premise such a negligence claim. The court granted defendant's preliminary objections in part.

  • Woullard v. Sanner Concrete & Supply

    Publication Date: 2020-11-16
    Practice Area: Damages
    Industry: Construction
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Olson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 20-1249

    Appellants challenged trial court's damages award in action over defective home construction and court found appellants did not present any evidence of diminution in value and there was no error in trial court's award of damages based on the costs of repair. Affirmed.

  • Witherspoon v. McDowell-Wright

    Publication Date: 2020-11-09
    Practice Area: Damages
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Panella
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 20-1218

    Trial court properly awarded appellant $7,500 for value of tools in a conversion action and trial court did not depreciate the value of the tools simply because they were used for a hobby in its decision finding appellant's valuation of the tools was not credible. Affirmed.

  • Osevala v. Gaudette

    Publication Date: 2020-10-26
    Practice Area: Damages
    Industry: Real Estate
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Cannon
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 20-1158

    Trial court erred in sustaining preliminary objections to private/public nuisance claim arising from diversion of floodplain waters by adjoining landowner where such claims could be brought independent of, or as an alternative to, administrative or statutory remedies held by the aggrieved property owner. Order of the trial court reversed, case remanded.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    New Jersey Medical Malpractice Law 2024

    Authors: Jonathan H. Lomurro, Gary L. Riveles, Abbott S. Brown

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Mazzie v. Lehigh Valley Hosp.-Muhlenberg

    Publication Date: 2020-08-24
    Practice Area: Damages
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lehigh County
    Judge: Judge Varricchio
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 20-0839

    Plaintiffs were entitled to a new trial limited to damages in this medical malpractice case where the jury verdict awarding them$39,000 for past medical expenses but zero damages for pain and suffering, future medical expenses or loss of consortium shocked the court's conscience. The court granted plaintiffs' motion for a new trial.

  • Podejko v. DOT

    Publication Date: 2020-08-10
    Practice Area: Damages
    Industry: Education | State and Local Government
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Covey
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 20-0860

    Trial court erred in finding that the vehicle liability exception to governmental immunity did not apply to fire department's pumping of water from a flooded road because fire department controlled the parts of the pumper truck that removed and redirected water from the roadway, fire department thus "operated" the vehicle and the vehicle liability exception applied. Reversed.

  • Johnson v. City of Philadelphia

    Publication Date: 2020-06-22
    Practice Area: Damages
    Industry: Real Estate | State and Local Government
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Marston
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 20-0642

    City's demolition of unsafe structures on plaintiff's property did not constitute due process violation where city had adequate investigation and notice procedures in place and failure to get notice to plaintiff did not itself constitute a policy or custom. Defendant's motion for summary judgment granted.

  • Brooks Auto. Group, Inc. v. General Motors LLC

    Publication Date: 2020-05-25
    Practice Area: Damages
    Industry: Automotive
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Western
    Judge: District Judge Horan
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 20-0520

    The statutory time period for defendant car manufacturer to act upon plaintiffs' proposed dealership sale, as set forth in §12(b) (5) of the Board of Vehicles Act, only began to run upon manufacturer's receipt of allrequired information, not upon the initial submission of the proposal. The commonwealth court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment in part.

  • A.B. v. Marriott Int'l Inc.

    Publication Date: 2020-05-04
    Practice Area: Damages
    Industry: Hospitality and Lodging
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Kearney
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 20-0451

    In this case of first impression, the district court read the federal sex trafficking act as imposing civil liability should a jury find that a business benefitted from participating in a venture it knew or should have known engaged in sex trafficking and that plaintiff's allegations against the defendant hotel franchisor were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. The district court denied in part defendant's motion to dismiss.