• Barbarevech v. Tomlinson

    Publication Date: 2022-04-25
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry: Automotive
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County
    Judge: Judge Nealon
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-0352

    The facts sustaining a potential witness's federal cyberstalking conviction supported its classification as a crimen falsi offense for purposes of admissibility under Pa.R. Evid. 609(a) where his dishonesty and falsehoods facilitated the commission of the crime. The court denied plaintiffs' motion in limine.

  • Barbarevech v. Tomlinson

    Publication Date: 2022-04-25
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry: Automotive
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County
    Judge: Judge Nealon
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-0351

    The court held that neither individual defendant or defendant employer could be considered a spoliator because they never had defendant driver's cell phone records in their possession, the records were destroyed by a non-party, and plaintiff failed to obtain a court order to protect the records from destruction. Motion in limine denied.

  • United States v. Porat

    Publication Date: 2021-11-22
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry: Education | Federal Government
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Pappert
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 21-1367

    Defendant moved to exclude all evidence concerning his financial status and that of his alleged co-conspirators as irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial and court found defendant's salary as dean of business school and tenured professor was relevant to his alleged motive, but not what he was paid after he was terminated as dean and co-conspirators' salaries were also irrelevant. Motion granted in part and denied in part.

  • Nitkin v. Main Line Health

    Publication Date: 2021-11-15
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Marston
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 21-1337

    The notes taken by the medical director of plaintiff's former employer were non-hearsay and, therefore, admissible as they fell within the party-opponent exclusion of Fed.R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(D), which allows for statements made by an employer's agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship and while it existed. The court denied in part defendant's motion in limine.

  • Mertz v. Sturtevant

    Publication Date: 2021-11-15
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lehigh County
    Judge: Judge Johnson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 21-1220

    The court found that the admissions made in defendant's guilty plea to the charge of aggravated assault supported a grant of summary judgment in plaintiff's civil case against defendant on the issues of liability and causation because the operative facts in the criminal and civil cases were identical. Partial summary judgment granted to plaintiff.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Rules 2024

    Authors:

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Commonwealth v. Green

    Publication Date: 2021-10-25
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Musmanno
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 21-1228

    The trial court erred in admitting evidence of prior bad acts in defendant's murder trial where the proffered evidence regarding a prior incident did not demonstrate a common scheme, plan or design to target grandmothers of defendant's protagonists. The appellate court reversed and remanded.

  • Commonwealth v. Page

    Publication Date: 2021-10-25
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lycoming County
    Judge: Judge Butts
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 21-1158

    The minor victim's out-of-court statements to her grandparents and a caseworker describing a criminal sexual offense by her father were admissible under the Tender Years Hearsay Act as the proffered evidence was relevant and imbued with "sufficient indicia of reliability" to allow for its admission. The court granted the commonwealth's petition.

  • United States v. Kraynak

    Publication Date: 2021-09-27
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Middle
    Judge: District Judge Brann
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 21-1110

    Government moved to exclude doctor's expert's testimony in case where doctor was indicted for unlawful distribution of controlled substances and deaths from those substances and court found expert's opinions were not reliable and had limited probative value, were likely to mislead the jury and would distract jury from the central questions of whether doctor issued prescriptions without a legitimate medical purpose and whether the prescribed drugs were the but-for cause of death of the decedents. Motion granted.

  • United States v. Hovan

    Publication Date: 2021-09-13
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry: Energy
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Brody
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 21-1059

    Defendant, charged with conspiring to purchase and sell Iranian oil, moved to suppress evidence and argued his consent to search his personal and work phones was coerced and court found well-educated businessman was given his Miranda warnings, agreed to talk to FBI agents, made several unprompted offers early in the interview to show the agents the contents of his phones and signed the consent to search forms after 32 minutes of a polite and conversational interview. Motion denied.

  • Commonwealth v. Barasky

    Publication Date: 2021-08-16
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lycoming County
    Judge: Judge Butts
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 21-0802

    Defendant successfully argued that law enforcement used an unreliable confidential informant and did not establish that defendant was on the other end of a phone conversation with the CI during a controlled buy where the CI had never been used in such a capacity and there were no other facts to substantiate the CI's information. The court granted defendant's motion to suppress.