West Chester, PA
Real estate Lawyer at West Chester, PA
Practice Areas: Real Estate, Appeals ... +5 more
OUTCOME: After three days of trial the case was settled for the broker's insurance poliy limits of $1 Million.
Suit against real estate brokerage company for negligent failure to supervise a Salesperson who was running a fraudulent investment scheme and property management operation.
OUTCOME: $3.8 Million dollar verdict, including $1 M in punitive damages
Action against a real estate agent for operating an investment scheme which fraudulently stole money from real estate investors
OUTCOME: $0 to the Plaintiff $60,000 to our client for rent and attorney's fees
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 fee ... s
OUTCOME: Case settled for $0 and mutual releases on eve of trial.
Tenant sued Landlord for medical injuries to herself and daughter fro exposure to alleged mold in their apartment.
OUTCOME: Award for our client in amount of entire deposit and for return of Notes
Suit for refund of deposit. Counterclam by Toll for deposit and collection of Notes ($100,000.00) related to Extras.
OUTCOME: Unanamous verdict for our client
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.
OUTCOME: Verdict for client- main case and counterclaim Success after appeals to Superior and Supreme Court.
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, t ... he 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!
OUTCOME: Commonwealth Court Affirmed. A win for the farmers that created statewide prededent.
Township refused to create Ag Security Areas in order to prevent farmers (primarily plain sect) from placing permanent easements on their farms to preserve them in perpetuity. The local Court reversed ... the township decision and the township appealed.
OUTCOME: Landmark decision in the Commonwealth Court
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 a ... nd 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.
OUTCOME: Landmark decision in the Commonwealth Court
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 a ... nd 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.
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
