Filter This View

  • Lutz v. O'Connell

    Publication Date: 2023-12-04
    Practice Area: Personal Injury
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Columbia County
    Judge: Judge Norton
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 729-CV-2023

    Defendant filed preliminary objections to plaintiffs' complaint arising out of a motor vehicle accident. The court granted the preliminary objections after concluding that a plaintiff was not sufficiently "closely related" to a decedent, as his loving companion, to state a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress after she witnessed his car crash and subsequent death.

  • Commonwealth v. Detwiler

    Publication Date: 2023-05-29
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry: Education
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Columbia County
    Judge: Judge Norton
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 15-CR-2022

    Defendants, three individuals, appealed their criminal convictions for defiant trespass after they refused to wear masks during a school board meeting at Southern Columbia Area School District during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court affirmed defendants' convictions, concluding that the school board had the authority to mandate the wearing of masks inside school buildings, including at public school board meetings, and that sufficient evidence was presented to the jury to support their convictions.

  • Commonwealth v. Detwiler

    Publication Date: 2022-08-08
    Practice Area: Education Law
    Industry: Education
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Columbia County
    Judge: Judge Norton
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 22-0814

    Court denied habeas corpus request in a case arising from parents' refusal to wear a mask while attending a school board meeting. Although the parents argued the school board had no power to enforce a masking policy, the court noted that under the Pennsylvania education code, broad authority is given to school districts to carry out their duties, including that of maintaining health within their buildings. Therefore, the court concluded the board did not abuse its implicit authority by mandating a mask requirement.

  • Glidewell v. Giant Food Stores, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2022-04-11
    Practice Area: Premises Liability
    Industry: Retail
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Columbia County
    Judge: Judge Norton
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 22-0293

    There was no genuine issue of material fact to demonstrate that defendant supermarket's actions or inactions were a substantial factor in bringing about the injuries plaintiff allegedly suffered when another patron hit plaintiff with a shopping cart. The court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment.

  • Laidacker v. Berwick Offray, LLC

    Publication Date: 2020-05-25
    Practice Area: Employment Litigation
    Industry: Manufacturing
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Columbia County
    Judge: Judge James
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0470

    Addressing an issue of first impression, the court of common pleas held that a prospective or current employee has a private cause of action to seek damages for violation of Pennsylvania's Medical Marijuana Act.The court denied defendant's preliminary objection in part.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings and Related Torts in Pennsylvania, Second Edition

    Authors: George Bochetto, David P. Heim, John A. O’Connell, Robert S. Tintner

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. Dist. v. Benjamin

    Publication Date: 2020-05-25
    Practice Area: Insurance Law
    Industry: Construction | Insurance
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Columbia County
    Judge: Judge James
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0469

    Plaintiff insurer was not obligated to provide coverage for an underlying personal injury claim where the evidence established that the insured had acted as the injured party's employer at the time of the accident and, therefore, an "employer's liability" exclusion applied to bar coverage. The court granted plaintiff insurer's motion for summary judgment.