Skip to main content
James S. Tupitza
Avvo
Pro

James Tupitza’s Legal Cases

11 total


  • In re: Agricultural Security Area in East Lampeter Township

    Practice Area:
    Real Estate
    Outcome:
    Landmark decision in the Commonwealth Court
    Description:
    Amish farmers were denied the right to permanently preserve their farms because the Township refused to allow them to create an Ag Security District. This decision established that it is the farmers and not the township that control Ag Security Districts. The farmers lost at the township level, won their appeal to the Court of Common Pleas, and again won on appeal to the Commonwealth Court. This case was supported by the Conestoga Valley Coalition.
  • In re: Agricultural Security Area in East Lampeter Township

    Practice Area:
    Real Estate
    Outcome:
    Landmark decision in the Commonwealth Court
    Description:
    Amish farmers were denied the right to permanently preserve their farms because the Township refused to allow them to create an Ag Security District. This decision established that it is the farmers and not the township that control Ag Security Districts. The farmers lost at the township level, won their appeal to the Court of Common Pleas, and again won on appeal to the Commonwealth Court. This case was supported by the Conestoga Valley Coalition.
  • Estate of Lewis v. Jarrett et. al.

    Practice Area:
    Real Estate
    Outcome:
    Favorable settlement at the end of trial.
    Description:
    This was a significant case involving the theft of a home in Philadelphia after the death of the owner. The owner's sons found the thief living in the house. When caught he immediately flipped the house to an investor. The investor delayed the litigation and retained possession of the house. In addition, the investor sued the real owners for over $600,000 in damages. Near the end of trial the investor was put through a difficult cross- examination. Before the Judge could render a verdict, the investor dropped his claims and bought the home from the estate on very favorable terms.
  • Stagliano v. Robert Bruce Designs, inc.

    Practice Area:
    Real Estate
    Date:
    Jan 01, 2010
    Outcome:
    Verdict for client- main case and counterclaim Success after appeals to Superior and Supreme Court.
    Description:
    A new home purchaser sued the Builder for defects in construction and other breaches. The Builder (our client) counter sued for the last two stage payments totaling about $160,000. In a jury trial, the Plaintiff was awarded $0 on his claim. Our client received a verdict and judgment of more that $250,000. The purchaser appealed to the Superior Court and lost, then to the Superior Court for reconsideration and lost, then to the Pa. Supreme Court and lost, then to the Pa Supreme Court for reconsideration and lost again. In a remarkable twist, the purchaser, a local trial lawyer, has now petitioned the lower court for a trial, claiming he never had one!
  • Robal v. Charlestown Township Supervisors

    Practice Area:
    Real Estate
    Outcome:
    Success through two appeals, third appeal pending.
    Description:
    Robal Associates sought to develop land it had owned for many years. Initially it wanted low density with 50,000 sq ft lots as per the township comprehensive plan. The township said no, follow our ordinance for townhouses. The township immediately rezoned the land to agriculture. We appealed and won at the local court level and the appeal to the Commonwealth Court. The developer then filed a plan and had 3 or 4 years of hearings at the township ending in a rejection. Our appeal to the Court of Common Pleas was successful as was our appeal to the Commonwealth Court. The township's request for reconsideration at the Commonwealth Court was just argued before the Court en Banc (the entire court). A decision is pending.
  • Brown v. Pulte Builders

    Practice Area:
    Construction & Development
    Outcome:
    Significant six figure victory for our client in arbitration.
    Description:
    We represented home buyers in claims for damages arising out of the purchase of a chemically contaminated new home. Claims were made for medical expenses, emotional damages and pain and suffering. Claims for violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law were not successful.
  • Doll vs. Nellius

    Practice Area:
    Real Estate
    Date:
    Apr 12, 2011
    Outcome:
    Unanamous verdict for our client
    Description:
    We defended a builder in a trial before a jury. The Plaintiff claimed damages for breach of contract and violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.
  • Arakelian v. Toll Brothers

    Practice Area:
    Real Estate
    Date:
    Jul 07, 2012
    Outcome:
    Award for our client in amount of entire deposit and for return of Notes
    Description:
    Suit for refund of deposit. Counterclam by Toll for deposit and collection of Notes ($100,000.00) related to Extras.
  • Rengepes v. Sandringham, Inc

    Practice Area:
    Real Estate
    Date:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Outcome:
    $0 to the Plaintiff $60,000 to our client for rent and attorney's fees
    Description:
    Defense of claim by tenant claiming mold caused the tenant to be constructively evicted, released from lease obligations, and entitled to re-payment of rent paid, p;us treble damages and attorney's fees
  • Taylor v. Joynt

    Practice Area:
    Real Estate
    Date:
    Aug 16, 2013
    Outcome:
    Case settled for $0 and mutual releases on eve of trial.
    Description:
    Tenant sued Landlord for medical injuries to herself and daughter fro exposure to alleged mold in their apartment.