Filter This View

  • In re: Davis

    Publication Date: 2023-09-04
    Practice Area: Court Administration
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Per Curiam
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 887 WDA 2022

    Appellant challenged the trial court's decision finding her guilty of direct criminal contempt and sentencing her to incarceration and financial penalties. The court affirmed, reasoning that appellant, as Clerk of the Courts of Washington County, engaged in direct contempt of the trial court by refusing to comply with its order regarding transfer of juvenile case records, resisting deputies, and engaging in disruptive misbehavior outside the courtroom.

  • Medvetz v. Woodruff

    Publication Date: 2023-07-24
    Practice Area: Court Administration
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Montgomery County
    Judge: Judge Saltz
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 2020-10582

    Defendant appealed the court's denial of his motion for reconsideration of the court's rejection of the parties' proposed stipulation to extend deadlines under a case management order. The court explained why the stipulated extension of its case management deadlines could not be authorized.

  • United States v. Unified Judicial Sys. of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

    Publication Date: 2023-05-08
    Practice Area: Court Administration
    Industry: Federal Government | State and Local Government
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Goldberg
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 22-709

    Unified judicial system of Pennsylvania moved to dismiss DOJ action alleging it violated title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act because some common pleas courts prohibited individuals with opioid use disorder from taking their prescribed medications while participating in court-supervised treatment programs and court found some of the allegations challenged judicial decision-making, rather than failures in court administration practice, and other requests for relief were insufficient for lack of standing because the alleged p

  • Bowser v. Clarion County

    Publication Date: 2019-04-01
    Practice Area: Court Administration | Employment Litigation | Government
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge McCullough
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0353

    The trial court properly found that plaintiff, a probation officer, was employed solely by the court of common pleas and, thus, did not have a claim against Clarion county under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act since the county could not be considered a joint employer. The appellate court affirmed.

  • Schuylkill County v. Labor Relations Bd.

    Publication Date: 2018-11-27
    Practice Area: Court Administration | Dispute Resolution | Labor Law
    Industry: Recruitment and Staffing | State and Local Government
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Leavitt
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1422

    Board correctly held that the county engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of the public employee relations act by unilaterally determining that an issue was not arbitrable and refusing to engage in arbitration because while the clerk of court asserted her §1620 county code rights, the existing CBA was negotiated prior to the clerk of court taking office, it remained in effect until a new CBA was reached and Article XVI in the CBA set forth the grievance procedure the parties had to follow. Affirmed.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Chester County Court Rules 2024

    Authors:

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Commonwealth v. Banks

    Publication Date: 2018-11-13
    Practice Area: Court Administration | Criminal Appeals | Judges
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge McLaughlin
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1370

    An assigned judge's temporary and planned medical absence would not likely constitute an extraordinary circumstance sufficient to meet the requirements of Pa.R.Crim.P. 700; however, defendant was not entitled to a new probation violation hearing since he consented to a newly assigned judge's authority to preside over his case.