• Shearer v. Hafer

    Publication Date: 2018-02-06
    Practice Area: Civil Procedure | Personal Injury
    Industry: Automotive
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Todd
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 18-0077

    Superior court erred in considering appellants appeal of the trial court order disallowing the presence of appellants counsel during the standardized portion of a neuropsychological examination because the order was not an appealable order as of right under Pa.R.A.P. 313 where the order met only one of the three prongs of the collateral order doctrine. Vacated.

  • Commonwealth v. Yong

    Publication Date: 2018-02-06
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Mundy
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 18-0107

    Collective knowledge doctrine applicable to justify arrest where arresting officer was working in coordination on execution of search warrant obtained by another officer possessing probable cause for defendants arrest. Order of the superior court reversed.

  • Cnty. of Allegheny v. Workers Compensation Appeal Bd. (Parker)

    Publication Date: 2018-02-06
    Practice Area: Administrative Law | Labor Law
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Baer
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 18-0109

    Workers Compensation Act did not authorize an order providing for reimbursement of unreasonable contest counsel fees, even where the employer was later ruled to have a reasonable basis to contest liability. Order of the commonwealth court reversed.

  • Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Pozonsky

    Publication Date: 2018-02-06
    Practice Area: Legal Ethics and Attorney Discipline
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Todd
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 18-0112

    Respondent judge was disbarred after he resigned his judicial commission and was convicted for stealing cocaine from the evidence locker in his courtroom and using it for recreational purposes while the founder and sitting judge of the drug court, obstructing administration of law and misapplication of entrusted property because respondents grievous conduct far outweighed the mitigation evidence he offered, it severely diminished the publics confidence in the judiciary and respondent offered no causal connection between his addictio

  • Commonwealth v. Wholaver

    Publication Date: 2018-02-06
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Baer
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 18-0106

    Brady violation claim dismissed where trial counsel obtained and utilized evidence of commonwealth witnesses legal troubles and subsequent favorable treatment following their cooperation as means to impeach their testimony, since additional impeachment evidence would merely have been cumulative. Order of the PCRA court affirmed.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    New Jersey Local Government Deskbook 2024

    Authors: Thomas P. Scrivo, Steven H. Sholk, Gibbons P.C.

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • SCF Consulting, LLC v. Barrack, Rodos & Bacine

    Publication Date: 2018-01-23
    Practice Area: Contracts | Fee Disputes
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Legal Services
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Saylor
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 18-0073

    Superior court erred in upholding the lower courts decision on the unenforceability of appellant non-attorneys fee splitting agreement with appellee attorneys because the action was not per se barred by the violation of rule 5.4 of the rules of professional responsibility since the conduct rules ought not be interposed into substantive law. Reversed.

  • In Re: Estate of Plance

    Publication Date: 2018-01-23
    Practice Area: Trusts and Estates
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Wecht
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 18-0065

    Individual acting as grantor and grantee never delivered deed where he failed to record and subsequently alienated interests in the property in contravention of the deed. Order of the superior court reversed.

  • In re Trust Under Deed of Kulig

    Publication Date: 2018-01-16
    Practice Area: Trusts and Estates
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Wecht
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 18-0027

    Superior Court erred in affirming the Orphans Courts decree that under 20 Pa. C.S. §7710.2, decedents inter vivos trust had to be considered part of the pretermitted spousal share because nothing in the text of §7710.2 or the commentary thereto expressed any specific legislative intent to change the pre-2006 framework for providing for pretermitted spouses and the language in §7710.2 was consistent with prior precedent. Reversed.

  • Commonwealth v. Johnson

    Publication Date: 2018-01-16
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Wecht
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 18-0016

    The trial court properly granted defendant a new trial where the commonwealth failed to disclose five police reports which suggested that the commonwealths key witness sought to curry favor with police regarding his own criminal conduct by testifying against defendant. The high court affirmed an order granting defendant a new trial.

  • Skotnicki v. Ins. Dept

    Publication Date: 2018-01-16
    Practice Area: Insurance Law
    Industry: Insurance
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Baer
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 18-0029

    Commonwealth court correctly refused to apply collateral estoppel when appellant argued that consumer services investigative report, issued in response to his appeal of the nonrenewal of his insurance policy, barred insurer from relitigating whether it violated Act 205 in cancelling his insurance because the regulations which implemented Act 205 determined that the matter was not finally adjudicated on its merits until the commissioner entered an order. Affirmed.