On May 14, 2015, the Honorable Judge R. Stanton Wettick, Jr. issued a Memorandum and Order of Court denying a railroad’s request to be dismissed from a property damage case in the matter of Environmental Air, Inc. v. Wheeling and Lake Erie Railway Company, which can be found at GD-11-013611 in the Court of Common Pleas of…

Trial Court Affirms Damage Award of $2.4 Million Plus Punitive Damages To Employer against Employee for a Breach of Duty of Loyalty One of the most damaging events for a small business is misconduct by a former employee stealing its customers and valued employees.  This issue was addressed in a recent court decision. On December 10,…

Pennyslvania Rule of Civil Procedure 207.1 “establishes procedures for motions to exclude expert testimony which relies upon novel scientific evidence.  The rule does not address the requirements for the admission of expert testimony under Pa. R.R. 702 and 703, which are governed by case law.”  Pa. R. Civ.P. 207.1(note). Read full article.

It has long been a position of those who wish to promulgate tort reform that underlying malpractice claims cause physicians to practice defensive medicine. Defensive medicine essentially means that doctors are ordering extra tests, taking extra precautions, and are being overly protective of their practices so as to over-treat patients. Tort reform laws are statutes…

A summary of the court’s decision follows. Groner argues that his proposed taking is nonetheless constitutional under § 204(b)(9) of the Eminent Domain Code, 26 Pa. C.S. § 204(b)(9). We do not agree. That section provides that Pennsylvania’s statutory prohibition against use of eminent domain “for private enterprise” does not apply where “[t]he property is used or to be…