The Supreme Court Chamber in the Pennsylvania State Capitol building on July 5 in Harrisburg.
A case about whether a mother who did not buckle her young child into the back seat of a ride-hailing vehicle can be convicted of child endangerment has showcased division among the Pennsylvania Supreme Court about what role common sense and morality should play in adjudicating cases.
On Aug. 25, the justices largely agreed that the Superior Court’s decision upholding the child endangerment conviction of Waylynn Marie Howard should be reversed, however, the high court splintered on the reasoning, with three justices filing concurring decisions and one dissenting.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
