Patrick J. Boland III

​Plaintiff 's wife reported to police that the plaintiff tried to kill her by firing a shotgun at her while she slept. Following a thorough investigation and witness interviews, police arrested plaintiff and charged him with attempted murder. The next day, plaintiff's wife recanted her story and told police that she was the one who fired a shotgun in the couple's home in an effort to frame her husband for attempted murder. Police immediately had plaintiff released from prison. Plaintiff's wife was later charged with, and pleaded guilty to, making false statements to authorities. Thereafter, plaintiff sued the police department and arresting officer claiming that defendants falsely arrested and imprisoned him and maliciously prosecuted him without probable cause in violation of his 4th and 14th Amendment rights. Following discovery, a motion for summary judgment was filed on behalf of defendants. The court found that the undisputed facts of record clearly showed the existence of probable cause at the time of arrest and summary judgment was granted in favor of defendants.

​An insurance agency sued a real estate developer and another insurance agency for unfair competition, trade libel, and defamation following the revocation of an insurance contract. Plaintiff was one of several entities to submit a bid for a complete insurance package for the developer. The plaintiff was initially awarded the contract. However, a second insurance company sent two e-mail messages to several individuals involved in the decision to award the contract claiming that the bid by the plaintiff was improper, incomplete, and contained unsworn falsifications subjecting the plaintiff and its representative to possible criminal charges. The contract was then revoked and awarded to the second insurance company. Not surprisingly the plaintiff sued the second insurance company seeking damages for defamation and commercial disparagement. Nearly two years later, plaintiff named our client, the real estate developer, as a defendant. We filed preliminary objections and argued that all claims against the client were barred by application of the one-year Statute of Limitations under Pennsylvania law for defamation, trade libel, and commercial disparagement. The court sustained the preliminary objections finding the action against our client was commenced outside the limitation period. As such, the client was dismissed from the action.

Obtained summary judgment in the Pike County Court of Common Pleas in a defamation action brought against a property owners’ association and several of its board members. ​Plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages from the Association and its individual board members after three separate newsletters were mailed to property owners referring to Plaintiff as a "fool" and accusing him of acting in self-interest and being part of a "band of merry men." Following oral argument, the Judge found that the statements were made in the context of a volatile community election, and, as a matter of law, the statements at issue were entirely incapable of defamatory meaning.