Filter This View

  • Johnson v. Phelan Hallinan & Schmieg, LLP

    Publication Date: 2020-08-31
    Practice Area: Creditors' and Debtors' Rights
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Legal Services
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Wecht
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0940

    Trial court correctly applied principal amount ceiling of Act 6 in effect at the time of loan origination where there was no indication in the 2008 revision to the act that the legislature intended for the increased ceiling to apply retroactively. Order of the superior court affirmed.

  • Kurach v. Truck Ins. Exch.

    Publication Date: 2020-08-31
    Practice Area: Insurance Law
    Industry: Construction | Insurance
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Todd
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0938

    Superior court properly found that insurer was permitted to withhold general contractor overhead and profit expenses from its actual cash value "step one" payments to policyholders after their homes were damaged because policyholders did not undertake repairs. Affirmed.

  • Commonwealth v. Wolfel

    Publication Date: 2020-08-17
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Saylor
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0878

    The commonwealth waived its challenge to defendant's failure to raise a claim under Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution by failing to challenge the suppression court's explicit invocation of that provision before the intermediate court. The high court reversed and remanded.

  • Commonwealth v. Byrd

    Publication Date: 2020-08-17
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Mundy
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0877

    The superior court properly reversed an order suppressing the recorded jailhouse conversations defendant had with his victim where his conduct in speaking to the victim, after being warned that such conversations might be recorded or monitored, satisfied the mutual consent exception to the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act. The high court affirmed.

  • Walsh v. BASF Corp.

    Publication Date: 2020-08-10
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry: Chemicals and Materials | Manufacturing
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Donohue
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0859

    Superior court properly reversed trial court's grant of pesticide manufacturers' Frye motion in product liability action because trial court abused its discretion by reviewing the scientific literature at a granular level to make its own judgments about which studies relied on by plaintiff's experts were scientifically acceptable. Affirmed.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Montgomery County Court Rules 2024

    Authors:

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Commonwealth v. Montgomery

    Publication Date: 2020-08-10
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Baer
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0845

    The superior court erred in holding that a handgun partially tucked into defendant's waistband, leaving the weapon's handle visible, was "concealed" as a matter of law for purposes of §6106 of the Uniform Firearm's Act, which prohibits carrying a concealed firearm without a license; however, the totality of the circumstances established sufficient evidence to demonstrate a prima facie case of concealment. The high court affirmed.

  • Commonwealth v. Hajdarevic

    Publication Date: 2020-08-10
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Elliott
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0848

    Defendant's rights under the confrontation clause, which protects a defendant's right to confront witnesses bearing testimony against him, were violated where a laboratory technician was allowed to testify about the time of defendant's blood draw to establish a material factual element of the offense even though she did not witness the blood draw. The high court reversed and remanded.

  • Commonwealth v. Lacombe

    Publication Date: 2020-08-10
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Dougherty
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0853

    Revised Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act provisions did not constitute criminal punishment and therefore were not an unconstitutional ex post facto law when applied to criminal activity committed prior to the statute's effective date. Orders of the trial court reversed.

  • Lowman v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review

    Publication Date: 2020-08-10
    Practice Area: Labor Law
    Industry: State and Local Government | Transportation
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Donohue
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0855

    Driving for Uber did not meet "control" and "independence" tests and thus people who drove for Uber after being terminated from regular employment were still eligible for unemployment compensation benefits. Order of the commonwealth court affirmed.

  • Commonwealth v. Smith

    Publication Date: 2020-08-10
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Dougherty
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0850

    An individual was deemed to be a "fugitive from justice" and therefore a person not to possess a firearm when he or she had an active bench warrant. Order of the superior court affirmed.