Posts Tagged ‘Law’

PEDRO L. ANES, PRESIDENT OF THE LATINO AMERICAN ALLIANCE OF NORTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA RECENTLY AWARDED ATTORNEY BRIAN G. PRICE AND THE LAW FIRM OF DOUGHERTY, LEVENTHAL AND PRICE WITH THE 2010 HISPANIC OUTREACH AWARD.  THE AWARD NOTED, “FOR EXEMPLARY LEGAL SERVICES TO THE LATINO COMMUNITY.  DLP EMPLOYS AND SERVES THE SPANISH SEAKING COMMUNITY.  KNOWN AS “EL ABOGADO QUE HABLA ESPANOL”, BRIAN PRICE AND HIS BILINGUAL STAFF – JOSEFINA ARIAS AND ANAITHE MARROQUIN - PROVIDE CULTURALLY SENSITIVE LEGAL ADVISE  AND DEFENSE TO THE REGION’S LATINO COMMUNITY.  DLP’S COMMITTMENT TO SUPPORTING THE LATINO COMMUNITY BRINGS GREAT CREDIT UPON THE DLP LAW FIRM AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION AS A WHOLE.” BRIAN PRICE, ON BEHALF OF  DLP ACCEPTED THIS PRESTIGOUS  AWARD AT THE MOUNT AIRY CASINO IN MONROE COUNTY.

ATTORNEY BRIAN G. PRICE IS BOARD CERTIFIED IN CIVIL TRIAL ADVOCACY BY THE NATIONAL BOARD OF TRIAL ADVOCACY AND RECOGNIZED BY PHILADELPHIA MAGAZINE AS A PENNSYLVANIA SUPER LAWYER.  ATTORNEY PRICE FOCUSES HIS ENTIRE BI-LINGUAL PRACTICE ON SERIOUS AND CATASTROPHIC INJURIES CAUSED BY AUTO ACCIDENTS, TRUCK ACCIDENTS, WORK INJURIES, PRODUCT DEFECTS, SLIP AND FALLS AND MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE.  YOU MAY REACH ATTORNEY PRICE DIRECTLY BY CALLING

 (570) C-A-L-L-D-L-P.

            Cathy was traveling towards Scranton on the Casey highway in a very thick fog with heavy rain. Cathy was going well under the speed limit but began to approach a vehicle in front of her that was only going about thirty miles per hour. Cathy put her blinkers on and started to pull out into the passing lane when she was impacted by Tom heading in the same direction. Tom had his windshield wipers on, but despite the poor visibility conditions, he had not bothered to put his headlights on.

            Tom suffered some injuries in the accident and bought a suit against Cathy. The attorney representing Cathy alleged that Tom was at least equally at fault for causing the accident because Tom did not put his lights on despite the weather conditions.

ISSUE:          Does Cathy’s attorney have a point?

ANSWER:     Yes. The law in Pennsylvania is that if you have your windshield wipers on, you must have your headlights on. The reason behind the law is clear: to make your car as visible as possible during times of poor visibility. In this case, not only was it raining, but it was also foggy outside. Had Tom put his lights on, in all likelihood Cathy would have been able to see his car before attempting to pass the car that was in front of her.

            Ultimately it will be up to a jury to decide the percentages of negligence, but it is quite possible that Tom will be found more negligent than Cathy under the circumstances.

Disclaimer: The above article is for instructive purposes only and each case is fact sensitive.  Consultation with an attorney should be obtained instead of reliance upon the legal issues discussed in this column. 

Dougherty Leventhal and Price LLP, DLP, has recently been contacted to handle drill rig accident injuries suffered in West Virginia, Louisiana and Texas.  DLP is working with local law firms to represent the workers seriously injured in these accidents.  The twelve lawyers at DLP are available to assist you in your case if you suffer injury in the drilling fields of Pennsylvania including Potter, Tioga, Bradford, Lycoming, Susquehanna or any county throughout Pennsylvania.  DLP has represented residents of Wellsboro, Mansfield, Coudersport, Montrose, Towanda and many other towns.  Please contact DLP if you suffer injury in a drill rig accident.

STEVE MOCARSKY [email protected]

When Chesapeake’s first rigs began arriving in Bradford County about two years ago, the company had 38 local employees, according to David Fisher, the company’s vice president of drilling services.

“And when I say local, I mean Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, West Virginia, working in this Northern District for Chesapeake. As of today, we have 225,” Fisher said.

One of the company’s goals is to see those numbers increase, especially for Pennsylvanians. And, he emphasized on Thursday before a tour of a subsidiary Nomac Drilling’s new employee training and housing facility near Sayre, the jobs are life- and family-sustaining.

It’s possible that someone new to the industry with a high school diploma but no prior experience can complete the training program and start working in the region on drill rigs making between $55,000 and $60,000 a year, Fisher said.

“What we’re trying to do as much as anything else through our training and through our presence here, is to build careers, not just jobs,” he said.

Fisher said it takes time and experience for employees to move into supervisory positions. “Our goal right now through the training is to be able to develop fast-track paths to be able to get people into supervisory roles and get them in higher-paying roles as much as we can,” he said.

Fisher also noted that as of February, Chesapeake employed 56 Pennsylvanians on area rigs; as of Thursday, employees from Pennsylvania number 156.

“Our goal is to continue on that path and increase as fast as we can to get more and more locals, more Pennsylvanians working in the area. We’re very committed to that,” Fisher said.

Brian Grove, senior director of corporate development at Chesapeake, said the training and housing facility represents “Chesapeake’s commitment to continuing the growth here and making it more and more local. We may be headquartered in Oklahoma, but we’re very much a Pennsylvania company.”

Retired Bradford County Sheriff Steve Evans, who went to work for Chesapeake as senior security officer in February, said he believes the training and housing facility is “living proof” that Chesapeake is “a company that really cares about minimizing the impact of a major, major operation – the harvesting of Marcellus Shale.”

“This is a substantial financial commitment to the community. We have housing issues here. There’s not enough housing. So this company invested a great amount of resources in building a very nice part of our community,” Evans said.

And, he said, the men and women who work for TriCorps Security at the facility are current or retired law enforcement officers from the local community.

“I know their personal stories, folks. I know that this has been a real blessing. Law enforcement officers don’t get paid a tremendous amount of money, and Chesapeake/Nomac has had no problem providing professional law enforcement officers, in exchange for their efforts, financial means to help their families in these trying times,” Evans said.

Steve Mocarsky, a Times Leader staff writer, may be reached at 970-7311.

Copyright: Times Leader

Paul could barely remember the auto accident he was in when he was a small child. Paul’s family were in their van when they were rear-ended by a drunk driver. Paul recalls being in the hospital for several weeks, but little else. As a result of the auto accident, Paul sustained a pretty severe back injury which lingered to the point where he could not participate in high school sports. Paul’s family was against the idea of bringing a law suit and nothing was ever done on Paul’s behalf. Paul was now nineteen years old and the accident had taken place twelve years previously.

ISSUE: Can Paul bring an action?

ANSWER: Yes. A minor has two years starting from their eighteenth birthday to bring a claim in their own right for any injuries they may have sustained as a result of the negligence of another party. As long as Paul institutes his suit via his lawyer before his twentieth birthday, he will have avoided the running of what is called the Statute of Limitations. The Statute of Limitations is the period of time for which you must bring a law suit against a Defendant. Once that period runs, regardless of the merits of your case, you can no longer sue under most circumstances.

Disclaimer: The above article is for instructive purposes only and each case is fact sensitive. Consultation with an attorney should be obtained instead of reliance upon the legal issues discussed in this column.

Jimmy had just started college as a freshman and was walking through the student union of a school. He was approached by a representative from a credit card company asking if he wanted to open up a credit card. This seemed like a good idea to Jimmy, so he signed up and received in the mail shortly thereafter, a credit card with a $2,500.00 credit allowance.

Jimmy found that the credit card came in useful for buying clothes, books and just generally having a good time. Jimmy did not have a job and had no idea how he was going to pay for the first bill when it came, which amounted to close to $900.00.

ISSUE: Is Jimmy responsible for these charges?

ANSWER: No. Just recently a credit card law was enacted which made it essential for the credit card companies to change their practices. One of the key changes is that now an individual must be at least 21 years old before he can be given a credit card on his own. Anything younger than that would require a co-signature of a parent or natural guardian to be valid.

In this particular situation, since Jimmy was only 18 years old, the credit card company had violated the law and thus could not hold Jim or his parents responsible for the debt incurred.

Disclaimer: The above article is for instructive purposes only and each case is fact sensitive. Consultation with an attorney should be obtained instead of reliance upon the legal issues discussed in this column.

Happy Jack was stopped at a red light at Hamlin Corners with the intention to proceed through the traffic light towards Newfoundland. Sloppy Sue was proceeding in a westerly direction on Route 590 heading towards Scranton. As it was raining extremely hard, Jack had his lights on as required by state law when the windshield wipers are in use. Sue often ignored that law, and despite the torrential rain, was approaching the intersection without her headlights on. Sue was driving a dark gray SUV and, as she approached the intersection, the light changed from green to red. Nonetheless, Sue decided to proceed anyway. Jack looked to his left before entering the intersection when the light turned green and simply did not see Sue approaching.

A violent collision occurred between the vehicles as Sue broadsided Jack. Both parties incurred serious injuries and each alleged that the other was the cause of the accident.

Jack’s attorney alleged, among other reasons, that because Sue did not have her headlights turned on in violation of the statute, it was her negligence that caused the accident.

ISSUE: Is Jack’s attorney correct?

ANSWER: Yes. It is a law in Pennsylvania that if one has their windshield wipers on, they must also turn on their headlights to increase the visibility of the vehicle in which they are travelling. The above situation highlights the absolute importance of making one’s vehicle as visible as possible in bad weather conditions to other drivers.

Disclaimer: The above article is for instructive purposes only and each case is fact sensitive. Consultation with an attorney should be obtained instead of reliance upon the legal issues discussed in this column

In light of the ever-growing presence of well drilling activity in the Marcellus Shale formation, Attorneys Joseph Price and Thomas Cummings of the DLP law firm recently received accreditation after attending a comprehensive continuing legal education course in Houston, Texas presented through the Oil, Gas and Energy Resources Law Section of the State Bar of Texas.
The substantive portions of the course materials included and overview of the applicable State and Federal regulations that cover jurisdiction over roads, traffic, noise, odors, leases, permits, pipeline easements and royalty payments. In addition, the program addressed the legal obligations of property owners (the “surface owner”) and well drilling operators in the event of a well drilling work accident, damage to the surface owners property, damage to adjacent owner’s property, or personal injury suffered as a result of a well drilling operation.
The course program, as offered by the University of Texas School of Law, provided instruction in problem areas that develop in the areas of oil, gas and mineral law. Course presenters included law professors, as well as private counsel and corporate attorneys who practice in the natural gas and oil drilling litigation field.

By MARC LEVY (AP) – 5 days ago

HARRISBURG, Pa. — Pennsylvania’s high court sided Wednesday with the natural gas industry in a dispute with landowners who had sought to invalidate the leases they signed before the Marcellus Shale rush intensified and drove up land values.

In a 6-0 decision, the Supreme Court upheld a Susquehanna County judge’s ruling that validated lease agreements that subtract drilling costs from the calculation of landowners’ natural gas royalties.

“Certainly we’re very pleased,” said Pittsburgh lawyer Kevin C. Abbott, who had filed friend-of-the-court briefs in the case on behalf of Chesapeake Energy Co. and other gas companies. “It does certainly look like a victory for the oil and gas industry.”

The decision is expected to settle dozens of other cases pending in Pennsylvania’s state and federal courts.

In this case, landowner Herbert Kilmer and others had sued ElexCo Land Services Inc. and Southwestern Energy Production Co., contending that such leases were invalid because state law guarantees landowners a minimum one-eighth royalty from the production of oil and gas on their land.

Justice Max Baer, who wrote the court’s decision, noted that the term “royalty” and the method of calculating a one-eighth share is not defined by the state’s Guaranteed Minimum Royalty Act. However, he cited various texts on the industry that say a royalty is paid from the net amount remaining after deduction of certain production and well development costs.

Kilmer’s lawyer, Laurence M. Kelly, said Wednesday evening that he was unaware of the decision and did not want to comment until he had read it.

Industry representatives have suggested the lawsuits were sour grapes on the landowners’ part because they had signed leases at values well below what their neighbors were negotiating months or years later from companies pursuing the Marcellus Shale.

Some geologists predict that the formation below a large swath of Appalachia could become the country’s biggest gas field.

The case was being closely watched by the company executives, who worried that a decision against their companies could invalidate tens of thousands of leases and throw the industry into chaos.

In addition, the royalty issue was being raised in more than 70 lawsuits filed in Pennsylvania’s federal and state courts by plaintiffs seeking a judgment that the leases they signed were never valid.

Judicial decisions in two of the cases raised the prospect of a myriad of different legal opinions.

In Susquehanna County, the judge in the Kilmer vs. ElexCo case had handed the companies an initial victory, saying the law does not specifically prohibit the subtraction of costs.

Separately, a federal judge in Scranton hearing a case against Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. denied a motion to dismiss the case, saying the law’s silence did not necessarily mean the costs can be legally deducted.

Kilmer appealed to state Superior Court, but industry lawyers asked the Supreme Court to step in and effectively settle the matter for everyone.

It did, and heard arguments in September.

Opinion: http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-78-2009mo.pdf

Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Original Article may be found here.