Filter This View

  • Rodgers v. Johnson

    Publication Date: 2024-03-08
    Practice Area: Deals and Transactions
    Industry: Real Estate
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Hill
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 02664

    In a §1925(a) opinion, the court defended its order in an action to quiet title to property and requested that the appeal be dismissed.

  • Palumbo v. JP Morgan Chase & Co.

    Publication Date: 2023-10-30
    Practice Area: Litigation
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Hill
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 02363

    Appellant bank appealed the trial court's order denying its motion for summary judgment in a consumer fraud case brought by former residential mortgage borrowers. The court concluded that appellant was not entitled to relief on appeal where its asserted defenses of res judicata and collateral estoppel did not apply because the claims raised by appellees here were distinct from those presented in appellant's earlier action for residential foreclosure.

  • Frazier v. Stanislaus

    Publication Date: 2023-10-02
    Practice Area: Real Estate
    Industry: Real Estate
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Hill
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 00994

    Appellants appealed a non-jury verdict favoring appellee in a lawsuit alleging various claims including fraud and breach of contract involving real property. However, the court found that, because appellants failed to provide the required Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of matters complained of on appeal, they waived all issues related to the judgment and award of damages and recommended that the matter be dismissed with prejudice.

  • Tyler v. Hoover

    Publication Date: 2022-12-05
    Practice Area: Personal Injury
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Hill
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 06965

    Court denied plaintiff's cross-appeal for delay damages on the basis that plaintiff failed to produce any evidence of how they arrived at their delay damages calculation. The court further noted that plaintiff failed to identify any delays which were attributable to defendant's conduct but instead found that the lengthy delay in the pre-trial history of the case was partially plaintiff's fault because plaintiff had failed to adhere to several discovery timelines.

  • Tyler v. Hoover

    Publication Date: 2022-11-28
    Practice Area: Civil Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Hill
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 06965

    Court affirmed the trial court's ruling denying motions to preclude evidence stemming from a MRI noting that while the parties did have difficulty retrieving the MRI images from the third-party imaging company, plaintiff's medical expert received the images and included them in his expert opinion report. The court further found that the jury did not need to conclude that plaintiff had suffered "serious bodily injury" in reaching their award of economic damages.

  • 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 "*"

  • Wiggs v. Energy Coordinating Agency

    Publication Date: 2022-10-24
    Practice Area: Damages
    Industry: Construction
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Hill
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 2436 EDA 2021

    Court found against defendants, who raised a statement of matters complained of on appeal challenging the trial court's orders and jury's verdict arising out of a trial for damages stemming from a home repair contract between the parties. Although defendant argued that the court erred in various aspects regarding expert witnesses, the court held that these were harmless errors which did not prevent defendant from presenting their case to the jury.

  • Huertas v. El Bochinche Restaurante

    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.

  • Lazard v. Casenta

    Publication Date: 2021-09-20
    Practice Area: Civil Procedure
    Industry: Construction
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Hill
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 21-0943

    Discovery was not necessary to ascertain whether the corporate defendant's small amount of revenue derived from business in Philadelphia would qualify as "regularly conducting business activities," thereby subjecting the company to suit in Philadelphia County. The court recommended affirmance.