Filter This View

  • SLT Holdings, LLC v. Mitch-Well Energy, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2021-05-17
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Energy
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Mundy
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 21-0540

    The trial court erred in providing plaintiffs recourse through application of the equitable doctrine of abandonment where they could have availed themselves of a full and adequate remedy at law through contract principles generally applicable to oil and gas leases and through the specific provisions of the leases. The high court reversed.

  • Commonwealth v. Finnecy

    Publication Date: 2021-05-10
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Mundy
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 21-0513

    The trial court's failure to impose a sentence under the Recidivism Risk Reduction Act implicated sentencing illegality and, in accordance with Commonwealth v. Cullen-Doyle, defendant's single prior conviction for a non-enumerated crime demonstrating violent behavior did not qualify as a history of past violent behavior barring eligibility under Act. The high court reversed in part, affirmed in part and remanded.

  • Commonwealth v. Chesapeake Energy Corp.

    Publication Date: 2021-04-05
    Practice Area: Consumer Protection
    Industry: Energy
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Mundy
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 21-0357

    The commonwealth could not bring claims under the state's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law on behalf of private landowners against a natural gas production company for its alleged deceptive, misleading and unfair practices in obtaining natural gas leases as the company was not conducting trade or commerce for the purposes of the law. The high court affirmed in part and reversed in part.

  • Commonwealth v. Moore

    Publication Date: 2021-04-05
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Mundy
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 21-0369

    Superior court correctly dismissed appellant's habeas petition, challenging his sentence on the grounds the statute under which he was sentenced was unconstitutionally vague, because appellant's claim was cognizable under the Post Conviction Relief Act and was facially untimely. Affirmed.

  • Commonwealth v. Cochran

    Publication Date: 2021-02-01
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Mundy
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 21-0091

    Defendant had no basis to challenge the sentencing court's jurisdiction under 18 Pa.C.S. §1106(c)(2) where he sought and secured a hearing on restitution to take place after the incarceration portion of his sentence and that hearing resulted in a final order months after the order imposing the incarceration portion of his sentence. The high court reversed an order vacating defendant's judgment of sentence and remanding for resentencing.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    New Jersey Estate Litigation 2014

    Authors: Michael R. Griffinger, Paul F. Cullum III

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Uniontown Newspapers, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Corr.

    Publication Date: 2021-01-11
    Practice Area: Public Records
    Industry: State and Local Government | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Mundy
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 21-0006

    Agency was subject to sanctions and fee shifting where open records officer simply relied on custodian's search efforts without documenting that reliance or otherwise conducting an independent search for records responsive to a Right to Know Law request.

  • Bourgeois v. Snow Time, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2020-12-21
    Practice Area: Personal Injury
    Industry: Entertainment and Leisure
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Mundy
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-1373

    Trial court erred in granting summary judgment to defendants without addressing plaintiffs' liability expert reports, which were sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact. Judgment of the superior court reversed, case remanded.

  • Commonwealth v. Jones

    Publication Date: 2020-11-16
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Mundy
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-1244

    Trial court improperly admitted police detective's testimony about child sexual assault victims' difficulties with recalling specific details of incidents of assault, where such testimony fell within the scope of expert testimony and the commonwealth had not qualified the detective as an expert witness. Order of the superior court reversed, case remanded for new trial.

  • 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.

  • Crown Castle NG E. LLC v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n

    Publication Date: 2020-08-03
    Practice Area: Public Utilities
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Mundy
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0817

    Public Utility Commission's statutory interpretation not entitled to court deference where Public Utility Code unambiguously defined distributed antenna system networks as public utilities as they did not provide cellular mobile services. Order of the commonwealth court affirmed.