Search for: "Kramer v. Philadelphia" Results 1 - 20 of 27
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Dec 2016, 4:30 am by Daniel E. Cummins
In a recent decision out of the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas in the case of Bielec v. [read post]
16 Dec 2014, 6:31 pm by Daniel E. Cummins
 of the Philadelphia office of Cozen & O'Connor and Attorney Scott Cooper of the Harrisburg office of Schmidt Kramer for bringing this decision to my attention. [read post]
28 Oct 2019, 5:00 am by Daniel E. Cummins, Esq.
Aliquippa Hosp., 561 A.2d 733 (Pa. 1989) to be distinguishable because Buttermore did not involve UIM benefits.The Court also rejected the UIM carrier's reliance on the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas case of Crisp v. [read post]
30 Oct 2019, 5:00 am by Daniel E. Cummins, Esq.
Cooper of the Harriburg, PA law office of Schmidt Kramer for bringing this case to my attention.In another case with a similar result, the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania also granted a motion to remand in Sherer v. [read post]
6 Apr 2009, 2:14 pm
Kramer A Man For All Seasons Miracle On 34th Street My Cousin Vinny Paper Chase Philadelphia Reversal of Fortune To Kill  a Mockingbird 12 Angry Men The Verdict Witness for the Prosecution Young Mr. [read post]
31 Mar 2014, 5:00 am by Daniel E. Cummins
In his recent decision in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case of Harvey v. [read post]
2 Aug 2010, 8:36 am by Daniel E. Cummins
Postal Service at a repair and maintenance facility in Philadelphia as a garage man. [read post]
9 Apr 2015, 4:30 am by Daniel E. Cummins
In its recent memorandum decision in the case of Gregg v. [read post]
9 Jul 2019, 4:42 am by Daniel E. Cummins
  As noted, the court found that this plaintiff could have raised the same types of issues and arguments as asserted in the Gallagher v. [read post]
31 Jul 2008, 3:12 pm
(Click here for a past AmLaw feature on the case — Aguinda v. [read post]
30 Nov 2015, 1:25 pm
Philadelphia Co. 1990) (an increased risk claim has “no place” in product liability action), aff’d mem., 599 A.2d 707 (Pa. [read post]