Filter This View

  • In the Interest of: H.Y.

    Publication Date: 2020-06-22
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Murray
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0643

    Trial court did not abuse discretion in finding child a victim of child abuse committed by parents after trial court credited medical testimony opining that child's injuries were consistent with non-accidental trauma and ruling out underlying medical conditions that could have facilitated those injuries. Order of the trial court affirmed.

  • Delancey v. Delancey

    Publication Date: 2020-06-15
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Cumberland County
    Judge: Judge Smith
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0494

    The court denied, as untimely, defendant's motion for reconsideration of a protection from abuse order since under §6117 of the Protection from Abuse Act, aggrieved parties must either file an appeal or motion to reconsider within 30 days, and the motion itself must be acted upon within those 30 days. The court dismissed defendant's motion.

  • In the Interest of: D.P.

    Publication Date: 2020-06-15
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Shogan
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0608

    Challenge to notice of the prosecuted statute and to the sufficiency of evidence did not constitute a non-waivable challenge to the legality of a dispositional order and thus the issues were waived for failing to raise an objection in the trial court. Order of the trial court affirmed.

  • Ileiwat v. Labadi

    Publication Date: 2020-06-15
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Bowes
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0610

    Trial court erred in deviating downward from alimony pendente lite guidelines where obligor husband failed to present evidence the guideline amount was inappropriate and unjust and where the trial court merely concluded wife did not need the full guideline amount to meet her expenses. Order of the trial court affirmed in part and reversed in part, case remanded for further proceedings.

  • Cherilus v. Cherilus

    Publication Date: 2020-06-08
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Cumberland County
    Judge: Judge Masland
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0463

    Even though wife resided in the family home after the parties' separation, husband's payment of the mortgage did not warrant a reduction in his interim support obligation. The court dismissed husband's exceptions to the support master's report and recommendations.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Texas Liquor Liability Practice Manual 2024

    Authors: Spencer G. Markle

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Thomas v. Thomas

    Publication Date: 2020-06-08
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Cumberland County
    Judge: Judge Hyams
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0489

    The court sustained husband's exception to the support master's report and recommendations regarding the payment of health insurance premiums, but denied other exceptions pertaining to the payment of the children's unreimbursed medical expenses and husband's credits for his period of unemployment.

  • In the Interest of: T.M.W.

    Publication Date: 2020-06-08
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Lazarus
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0590

    Trial court erred in involuntarily terminating parental rights and changing permanency goal to adoption where parent was in substantial compliance with service plan and Department of Human Services' failure to notify mother of specific deficiencies in her compliance efforts meant that DHS failed to provide reasonable efforts to reunify parent and child. Order of the trial court reversed, case remanded.

  • Lightner v. Seeger

    Publication Date: 2020-06-08
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Cumberland County
    Judge: Judge Masland
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0464

    Where father was held in contempt for failing to report a "significant change" in his income and the case was remanded for a calculation of arrearages due, a support master properly conducted only a calculation of arrearages and did not err in failing to consider the complete components of the child support calculations. The court of common pleasdismissed father's exceptions.

  • M.B.S. v. W.E.

    Publication Date: 2020-06-08
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Strassburger
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0584

    Mother challenged court's grant of father's motion for reconsideration and grant of legal custody to father and court found that since child would turn 18 in May 2020 and child custody act did not provide an exception for a child who was 18 and still in high school, court had no jurisdiction and mother's claims were moot. Appeal dismissed.

  • Bowman v. Bowman

    Publication Date: 2020-06-01
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Cumberland County
    Judge: Judge Masland
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0466

    The court rejected wife's exceptions to the report and recommendations of the support master, except for an error in calculating certain expenses relating to the parties' minor child.