• Rice v. Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown

    Publication Date: 2021-08-09
    Practice Area: Personal Injury
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Donohue
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 21-0904

    Superior court erred in reversing trial court that properly found the inquiry notice approach to the discovery rule required plaintiff to investigate diocese as a potential additional cause of her injuries, from being molested by her priest as a child, during the two-year limitations period. Reversed.

  • Commonwealth v. Fitzpatrick

    Publication Date: 2021-08-09
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Wecht
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 21-0916

    The trial court erred in admitting a victim's compound hearsay statement into evidence at her husband's murder trial as the fact-bound aspect of the victim's hearsay note could not be bootstrapped into admissibility merely because the statement contemporaneously contained some expression of the victim's state of mind. The high court granted defendant a new trial.

  • Mortimer v. McCool

    Publication Date: 2021-08-02
    Practice Area: Personal Injury
    Industry: Food and Beverage
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Wecht
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 21-0871

    Superior court properly held plaintiff could not pierce the corporate veil to hold defendant LLCs and individuals liable for a dram shop judgment because while supreme court recognized a narrow form of "enterprise liability," it did not apply under the facts in this case. Affirmed.

  • City of Johnstown v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (Sevanick)

    Publication Date: 2021-08-02
    Practice Area: Labor Law
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Donohue
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 21-0880

    Act 46 clearly intended to establish separate limitations period for firefighter cancer claims, which were not subject to the traditional 300-week claim period for other occupational diseases. Order of the commonwealth court affirmed.

  • Commonwealth v. Baker-Myers

    Publication Date: 2021-08-02
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Dougherty
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 21-0885

    The superior court properly found that where a jury acquitted defendant of all chapter 31 sexual offenses charged, the evidence was insufficient to convict him of corruption of minors graded as a third-degree felony because a chapter 31 violation was an essential element of that offense. The high court affirmed.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    How to Recover Attorneys’ Fees in Texas 2024

    Authors: Trey Cox, Jason Dennis

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • In re: Adoption of: C.M.

    Publication Date: 2021-08-02
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Dougherty
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 21-0878

    Trial court erred in involuntarily terminating father's parental rights where record showed father made substantial efforts to exercise parental duties in the six months prior to the termination petition. Order of the superior court affirmed.

  • In re: Amazon.com Inc., Fulfillment Ctr. Fair Labor Standards Act & Wage & Hour Litig.

    Publication Date: 2021-08-02
    Practice Area: Labor Law
    Industry: E-Commerce
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Todd
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 21-0883

    Where employees were required to remain on the employer's premises while undergoing and awaiting the results of a mandatory security screening, such time constituted compensable "hours worked" under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. Matter returned to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

  • McCloskey v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n

    Publication Date: 2021-08-02
    Practice Area: Public Utilities
    Industry: Energy | State and Local Government
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Baer
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 21-0886

    The commonwealth court did not err in holding that a recent Public Utility Code enactment requiring the inclusion of income tax deductions and credits in rate computations required public utilities to revise their distribution system improvement charge calculations to include income tax deductions and credits to reduce rates charged to consumers. The high court affirmed.

  • McKelvey v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Health

    Publication Date: 2021-08-02
    Practice Area: Public Records
    Industry: Health Care | Pharmaceuticals | State and Local Government
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Todd
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 21-0869

    Commonwealth court properly rejected department's request to be relieved of its obligation to review Right-to-Know Law requests and determine what parts of a record were subject to disclosure and properly rejected medical marijuana business permit applicant's assertion that RTKL disclosure requirements ought to be narrowly construed but court vacated the decision with respect to applicant's claim it presented sufficient information with respect to disclosure of its financial information. Affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded.

  • U.S. Venture, Inc. v. Commonwealth

    Publication Date: 2021-08-02
    Practice Area: Government
    Industry: Construction | Energy | State and Local Government
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Donohue
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 21-0870

    Commonwealth court properly found that "construction" within the context of 62 Pa.C.S. §102(f) required some element of control or ownership by the commonwealth, and in this case, the construction was for privately-owned fuel pumps and board of claims had no jurisdiction over plaintiff's action over two "grants" which were not subject to limited waiver of sovereign immunity. Affirmed.