The PA Law 100


Top 100 Law Firms in Pennsylvania

Issue link:

Contents of this Issue


Page 15 of 113

Most Requested Opinions Rank Case Name 1. PICS No. Court Greenawalt v. Shenango Presbyterian Seniorcare 2. Harbison v. Jps Getty 12-0351 C.P. Lawrence Date February 12, 2012 Judge Piccione Holding The hills and ridges doctrine did not apply to plaintiff's claim that she slipped and fell as a result of inadequate plowing services, and it should be left to a jury to decide whether a dangerous condition was present of which defendant property owner should have been aware. Motions for summary judgment denied. 12-0074 C.P. Lancaster December 22, 2011 3. Skalos v. Bonnell's Collision 4. Walmsley v. Ehmann 12-0790 C.P. Erie April 13, 2012 12-0558 Pa. Superior March 18, 2012 5. Havir v. Fountain Hill Development Assoc. 6. Goodman v. Chester Downs and Marina 7. Lipsky v. State Farm 12-1003 C.P. Lehigh Knisely The danger caused by uneven steps at the convenience store should have been known or obvious to plaintiff and plaintiff had a duty to look where she was walking and see that which was obvious. Defendants' motion for summary judgment granted. Garhart The court found the hills and ridges doctrine applied and that it clarified the general duty owed by business owners to invitees found in the Restatement, specifically when an injury was caused by ice and snow. Summary judgment granted in favor of defendant. Gantman The corporate veil of a limited liability corporation can't be pierced just because the LLC's only purpose was to hold the stock of a corporation that acquired loss-inducing leasehold interests in nursing homes. May 2, 2012 McGinley Plaintiff voluntarily proceeded in the face of an obvious and dangerous condition when she chose to walk over "slushy ice" in the parking lot in an attempt to reach her car and defendants did not owe her a duty of care. Defendants' motion for summary judgment granted. 11-3865 C.P. Philadelphia August 2, 2011 11-4128 Pa. Superior September 1, 2011 Tereshko Plaintiff, who slipped and fell on a clear liquid on the floor, failed to establish a breach of duty by defendant because there was no actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. Summary judgment in favor of defendant should be affirmed. Stevens Appellees' claims of "physical complaints" and "great detriment and loss" from their mental and emotional anguish after witnessing the death of a close relation brought their negligent infliction of emotional distress claims within the "bodily injury to a person" definition for "bodily injury" in appellant's automobile insurance policy; in addition, each emotional distress injury represented an original injury, not derivative or resulting from the injury sustained by the relation and each bystander was entitled to recover according to his own "each person" liability limit. Declaratory judgment in favor of appellees affirmed. 8. Thompson v. Convent of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Chestnut Hill 9. Patton v. Worthington Associates 10. (tie) 10. (tie) 12. 13. Boring v. Ludwig 11-1267 C.P. Philadelphia June 30, 2011 Tereshko Plaintiff failed to establish the duty required for a prima facie case of negligence because the dangerous condition was open and obvious and she assumed the risk by walking through a puddle of water she observed on the floor of a restroom. Summary judgment in favor of defendants was proper. 12-0639 Pa. Superior March 27, 2012 11-3952 C.P. Lawrence August 5, 2011 Zappala v. Hangley Aronchick Segal & Pudlin Gibson v. Allen Bradley Bratic v. Rubendall 12-1197 Pa. Superior June 21, 2012 12-0375 C.P. Philadelphia February 10, 2012 12-0783 Pa. Superior April 23, 2012 Mundy In this personal injury case, the court affirmed, inter alia, that appellee was an independent contractor and denied appellant's post-trial motions. Judgment entered in favor of appellees affirmed. Motto In this dram shop liability case, circumstantial evidence was used to establish defendant's visible intoxication while being served alcohol. Motions for summary judgment granted as to two defendant bars and denied as to two defendant bars. Bender The lower court properly dismissed plaintiff's action for wrongful use of civil proceedings under the Dragonetti Act where he could not establish that defendant's discontinuance of the underlying action was tantamount to the action being resolved in his favor. Affirmed. Mazer-Moss The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas granted defendant B.F. Goodrich's motion to dismiss Texas plaintiffs Deborah and Lark Gibson's asbestos suit on forum non conveniens grounds. Mundy The trial court erred in granting defendants' petition to transfer on the basis of forum non conveniens where the court relied on irrelevant factors and defendants did not offer particularized averments sufficient to satisfy their burden on such a petition. Reversed and remanded. Source: Pennsylvania Instant Case Service Statistics, August 1, 2011 – July 31, 2012. Ranked by number of times requested. 14 | PaLaw 2012

Articles in this issue

view archives of The PA Law 100 - 2012