Search for: "Pennsylvania Plaintiffs" Results 121 - 140 of 8,008
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 May 2010, 10:49 am by admin
  The trial court held that the plaintiff’s expert witnesses opinions failed to satisfy Pennsylvania’s requirement of “general acceptance,” and excluded their opinions. [read post]
28 Jul 2010, 7:16 pm by Daniel E. Cummins
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently issued an Opinion on July 21, 2010 in the case of Summers v. [read post]
22 Dec 2008, 9:09 pm
The court found that a Pennsylvania Superior Courty had erred in concluding that Pennsylvania's informed consent law required the Plaintiff to testify herself about information that was not provided by her doctor. [read post]
28 Mar 2024, 10:00 am by Mary Chastain
Pennsylvania's dating requirement does not violate, the Materiality Provision, we reverse the District Court’s order and remand for it to consider the merits of the Plaintiffs’ equal protection challenge. [read post]
28 Jan 2009, 10:55 pm
" Defendants also will pay Plaintiffs' attorney's fees. [read post]
10 Aug 2020, 5:00 am by Daniel E. Cummins, Esq.
C.S.A. 1303.513(d).The Pennsylvania Superior Court held that “affirmative misrepresentation or fraudulent concealment of the cause of death” means affirmative misrepresentations about or fraudulent concealment of conduct the Plaintiff alleges led to the decedent’s death. [read post]
21 Aug 2014, 4:15 am by Howard Friedman
Burwell, (WD PA, Aug. 20, 2014), a Pennsylvania federal district court issued a permanent injunction under RFRA against requiring the Diocese of Greensburg, Pennsylvania and affiliated organizations to comply with the  compromise rules under the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate. [read post]
18 Nov 2023, 1:50 pm by Petrelli Previtera, LLC
A Pennsylvania resident can sue a non-resident for divorce in a Pennsylvania court, or a non-resident plaintiff can sue a Pennsylvania resident in Pennsylvania. [read post]
27 Nov 2012, 10:51 am by Daniel E. Cummins
Well, in Pennsylvania strict liability, the mere comparative negligence of the plaintiff isn’t a defense/admissible evidence. [read post]
27 Mar 2012, 11:16 am by Daniel E. Cummins
The Hockenberry court reviewed the law of Pennsylvania under 75 Pa. [read post]
10 Jul 2023, 12:31 pm by John L. Culhane, Jr. and Brian Turetsky
A Pennsylvania federal district court has ruled that the plaintiffs’ allegations that notices of repossession sent by a bank failed to comply with the state’s Motor Vehicle Sales Finance Act (MVFSA)  were sufficient to state a claim under the Pennsylvania Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). [read post]
2 Feb 2017, 5:00 am by Daniel E. Cummins
.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed the current status of the law of spoliation of evidence in Pennsylvania. [read post]
2 Aug 2017, 4:58 pm by Needle Law Firm
Success for a plaintiff in a slip and fall case, for example, would require the injured victim to show that the property owner or manager had been negligent. [read post]
3 Oct 2013, 4:00 am by Howard Friedman
Plaintiffs in the most recent case are couples who were issued marriage licences by Montgomery County clerk D. [read post]
22 Feb 2006, 3:32 pm
[JURIST] Pennsylvania's Dover Area School District [official website] has agreed to pay $1 million in plaintiff's attorneys' fees after a federal district court found that the school district's inclusion of intelligent design theory in its high school biology curriculum was unconstitutional. [read post]
8 Dec 2020, 6:44 pm by Daniel E. Cummins, Esq.
 Here is a LINK to the 2020-2021 "Judicial Hellholes" List put out annually by the American Tort Reform Association.Pennsylvania has topped the list of "Judicial Hellholes" for the second year in a row.In particular, the report cited to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court relative to plaintiff-friendly decisions it handed down in the past year. [read post]
22 Oct 2020, 5:39 am by Daniel E. Cummins, Esq.
  See Op. at p. 36-37.In favoring the Plaintiffs' position, as it has been wont to do, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected a more narrow analysis of the jurisidictional issue as such a contrary view "could unnecessarily restrict access to justice for plaintiffs. [read post]