Filter This View

  • Commonwealth v. Fitzpatrick

    Publication Date: 2021-08-09
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Wecht
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 21-0916

    The trial court erred in admitting a victim's compound hearsay statement into evidence at her husband's murder trial as the fact-bound aspect of the victim's hearsay note could not be bootstrapped into admissibility merely because the statement contemporaneously contained some expression of the victim's state of mind. The high court granted defendant a new trial.

  • Allstate Ins. Co. v. LG Elec. USA, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2021-07-26
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry: Electronics | Insurance
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Baylson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 21-0857

    Where plaintiff's expert ruled out all other potential causes of a house fire and determined that there were two potential causes, both of which would be the result of a manufacturing defect, the expert was not required to show which of those two potential causes occurred because either one would impose liability. The court denied defendant's motion to exclude.

  • Thorpe v. City of Philadelphia

    Publication Date: 2021-07-12
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Pratter
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 21-0789

    Incarcerated individuals subpoenaed by defendants, in plaintiff's action alleging investigatory misconduct in his conviction for a murder he did not commit, moved to quash the subpoenas asserting they would assert their fifth amendment rights and court found the motions were premature. Motions denied.

  • Barbounis v. The Middle E. Forum

    Publication Date: 2021-06-21
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry: Non-Profit
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Wolson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 21-0697

    Defendant could not rely on out-of-court hearsay statements to support its motion for summary judgment on counterclaims against the plaintiff where it failed to demonstrate that two exceptions to the rule against hearsay, i.e., statements against interest and wrongfully causing a declarant's unavailability, applied. The court granted plaintiff's motion to dismiss defendant's counterclaims.

  • Commonwealth v. Yale

    Publication Date: 2021-05-10
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Donohue
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 21-0524

    Lower courts erred in applying Pa.R.E. 404(b) to evidence of third person guilt offered by a defendant and found Pa.R.E. 401-403 applied to the admissibility of the evidence. Vacated and remanded.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Library of Pennsylvania Family Law Forms, Fourth Edition

    Authors: Joseph S. Britton

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Commonwealth v. Dirosa

    Publication Date: 2021-04-19
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Stevens
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 21-0418

    The prosecution produced sufficient evidence from which the trial court could infer that defendant was in actual physical control of the movement of his motor vehicle where the arresting officers found him parked outside a convenience store and slumped over in the driver's seat with the engine running and no one else in the car. The appellate court affirmed.

  • Kivett v. Neolpharma, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2021-04-12
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry: Manufacturing | Pharmaceuticals
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Wolson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 21-0401

    Defendants moved to seal exhibits attached to their motion for summary judgment and court found defendants failed to make specific, detailed showing about the harm that would result from disclosure. Motion denied.

  • Commonwealth v. Tillery

    Publication Date: 2021-04-12
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Stabile
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 21-0395

    Where the vehicle code did not require use of a turn signal when moving from a traffic lane to a parking spot, police lacked probable cause to initiate a traffic stop, requiring suppression of evidence recovered during the stop. Order of the trial court affirmed.

  • Shaffer v. Pennsbury Sch. Dist.

    Publication Date: 2021-03-29
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry: Education
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge McHugh
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 21-0341

    Plaintiff moved to compel production of redacted portions of a deposition in another case and court found that when a witness was repeatedly allowed to reveal privileged information in response to questions posed by counsel for holder of the privilege, counsel failed to take "reasonable steps to prevent disclosure" as required by rule 502(b)(3) and the privilege was waived. Motion granted in part.

  • Commonwealth v. Hudson-Greenly

    Publication Date: 2021-03-08
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Stevens
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 21-0244

    The trial court properly allowed the minor victim to testify by a contemporaneous alternative method where the victim's testimony, coupled with the trial court's observations, supported a finding that defendant's presence would have caused the victim serious emotional distress and impaired her ability to communicate in the courtroom. The superior court affirmed.