Filter This View

  • Fouse v. Saratoga Partners, L.P.

    Publication Date: 2020-10-12
    Practice Area: Tax
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Baer
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-1102

    Distinction in redemption rights between MCTLA and RETSL did not violate equal protection principles where the right of redemption was a statutory rather than fundamental constitutional right and where taxpayers still had some right of redemption under RETSL and the lack of a post-sale redemption served the legitimate government interest of maximizing tax collection by facilitating higher bids at an upset tax sale. Order of the commonwealth court affirmed.

  • Commonwealth v. Weir

    Publication Date: 2020-10-12
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Donohue
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-1107

    Criminal defendant's challenge to the amount of a restitution order constituted a challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentence rather than a non-waivable challenge to the legality of sentence, such that a defendant was required to preserve the issue in a post-sentence motion and through appeal. Order of the superior court affirmed.

  • SEDA-COG Joint Rail Auth. v. Carload Express, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2020-10-12
    Practice Area: Government
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Donohue
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-1114

    Commonwealth court correctly interpreted "present" in 53 Pa.C.S. § 5610(e) to mean voting member under the common law and "presence" presupposed voting in order to be counted for purposes of obtaining a majority vote count. Affirmed.

  • Johnson v. Wetzel

    Publication Date: 2020-10-12
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Saylor
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-1111

    Commonwealth court properly dismissed appellant's claims relating to negligence in his action asserting a due process challenge to act 84 deductions from his inmate account but erred in dismissing appellant's due process claim because relief was available to inmates whose first deduction was made before Montanez v. Secretary Pa. DOC, 773 F.3d 472, and Bundy v. Wetzel, 646 Pa. 248, were decided. Affirmed in part and vacated in part.

  • Nicole B. v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia

    Publication Date: 2020-09-28
    Practice Area: Civil Rights
    Industry: Education | State and Local Government
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Todd
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-1063

    Commonwealth court erred in holding that Pennsylvania Human Relations Act's equitable tolling provision did not toll the time requirement for complaints filed by minors because PHRA's equitable tolling provision was ambiguous and under the tolling provision, the limitations period could be tolled during a child's period of minority. Reversed.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Connecticut Landlord and Tenant Law with Forms Third Edition (2020)

    Authors: NOBLE F. ALLEN

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar

    Publication Date: 2020-09-28
    Practice Area: Election and Political Law
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Baer
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-1056

    Implementation of mail-in ballot drop boxes and extension of the received-by date for mailed ballots is permissible under the Election Code and warranted under the present circumstances of the upcoming election. Petition for relief granted in part and denied in part.

  • In re Nomination Paper of Scroggin

    Publication Date: 2020-09-28
    Practice Area: Election and Political Law
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Wecht
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-1064

    Commonwealth court erred in allowing the submission of a fax of a candidate's purported affidavit, contravened a critical anti-fraud election regulation, erred in excusing the fax's "method of submission" and erred in determining that "substantial compliance" was sufficient to excuse candidate's oversight and the defect was fatal to candidate's nomination and to the substitution of the person nominated at the party's convention. Reversed.

  • Commonwealth v. Bagnall

    Publication Date: 2020-09-07
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Baer
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0960

    The superior court erred in rejecting defendant's Brady violation claim where the prosecution violated defendant's due process rights by failing to disclose a cooperation agreement with a key witness and the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, which prosecuted the case, was imputed with knowledge of the agreement. The high court reversed and remanded for a new trial.

  • Commonwealth v. Nevels

    Publication Date: 2020-09-07
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Saylor
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0968

    Retaliation against witness statute was not limited solely to witnesses in civil matters where statute originally only protected victims and witnesses in criminal proceedings and it was illogical for the legislature to remove such protections when amending the statute to extend protection to parties in civil matters. Judgment of the superior court affirmed.

  • Commonwealth v. Reid

    Publication Date: 2020-08-31
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Dougherty
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0934

    Judicial determinations such Williams v. Pennsylvania, wherein the U.S. Supreme Court addressed a Pennsylvania justice's failure to recuse himself in a case in which he had significant involvement as district attorney, did not satisfy the newly discovered fact exception to the Post Conviction Relief Act time bar; thus, the PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to reinstate defendant's nunc pro tunc right to appeal here. The high court quashed defendant's appeal.