Alexa Woronowicz

September 29, 2017 | The Legal Intelligencer

The court, in case in which pedestrian was struck crossing train tracks, granted defendant train company's motion for summary judgment regarding plaintiff's claims for negligently exceeding the speed limit, negligently failing to have adequate pedestrian warning, negligent design and maintenance and negligent failure to issue adequate audible warnings and denied the motion with regard to plaintiff's claim for negligent operation of the train. Motion granted in part and denied in part.

By Alexa Woronowicz

4 minute read

September 29, 2017 | The Legal Intelligencer

In this slip-and-fall case, plaintiff failed to show that defendant breached a duty to her in not warning her of a dangerous condition on the premises, so the court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant.

By Alexa Woronowicz

3 minute read

September 29, 2017 | The Legal Intelligencer

A criminal defendant's motion to suppress evidence was granted where police officers performed a protective sweep of a residence without articulable facts regarding the officers' safety.

By Alexa Woronowicz

3 minute read

September 29, 2017 | The Legal Intelligencer

The trial court properly admitted into evidence a portion of the victim's recorded forensic interview under Pa.R.Evid. 803.1(3) where the victim testified that her recollection of the incidents of abuse was much better at the time of the interview. The appellate court affirmed defendant's judgment of sentence.

By Alexa Woronowicz

3 minute read

September 29, 2017 | The Legal Intelligencer

The trial court erred in precluding the commonwealth from offering as evidence two jail call recordings in which defendant allegedly made inculpatory statements as a sanction for failing to fulfill an earlier promise to provide transcriptions of all his recorded phone calls where the scope of the earlier promise was unclear and the bulk of the other recordings immaterial. The court reversed and remanded.

By Alexa Woronowicz

3 minute read

September 29, 2017 | The Legal Intelligencer

Broadcast licensor entitled to statutory damages for unlawful signal intercept where business' purchase of residential license instead of commercial license evidence reckless disregard, as business had previously purchased commercial licenses from licensor. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment granted.

By Alexa Woronowicz

4 minute read

September 29, 2017 | The Legal Intelligencer

Public record presumption did not apply as a bar to invocation of the newly-discovered facts exception to the timeliness requirement of the PCRA for pro se incarcerated PCRA petitioners, although such petitioners were still required to prove that the facts underlying their claims were unknown to them and could not have been discovered sooner with due diligence. Order of the PCRA court reversed.

By Alexa Woronowicz

3 minute read

September 29, 2017 | The Legal Intelligencer

Trial court properly denied appellant's assertion that 'Birchfield v. North Dakota', 136, S.CT. 2160, made Pennsylvania's implied consent law unconstitutional and a violation of the Fourth Amendment because that case applied to a criminal penalty, not a civil one, and the implied consent law did not impose an unconstitutional condition on driving privileges. Affirmed.

By Alexa Woronowicz

3 minute read

September 29, 2017 | The Legal Intelligencer

Trial court erred in granting judgment on the pleadings to television station in fired school police officer's action for defamation and false light invasion of privacy after station reported he was fired over allegations of sexual abuse of a minor. Reversed.

By Alexa Woronowicz

3 minute read

September 29, 2017 | The Legal Intelligencer

Court granted pipeline company's motions for summary judgment and preliminary injunction in action for the taking of property for the construction of an interstate natural gas pipeline because FERC had issued a certificate of public convenience, landowners' due process challenges were attacks on the FERC order disguised as constitutional claims, the court lacked jurisdiction to address a challenge to the FERC order, the filing of a request for a rehearing did not operate as a stay of a certificate order, due process did not require an in-person evidentiary hearing, and the FERC order was not a "conditional order" because the NGA did not contain a requirement that the holder of a FERC certificate satisfy all conditions of the certificate prior to the exercise of eminent domain. Motions granted.

By Alexa Woronowicz

4 minute read