Filter This View

  • Century Indemnity Co. v. One Beacon Ins. Co.

    Publication Date: 2017-11-07
    Practice Area: Insurance Law
    Industry: Insurance
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Ott
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1656

    The defendant reinsurers obligation to pay defense expenses to plaintiffs, who paid out significant losses on asbestos-related claims, was not capped by the reinsurance accepted amount listed in the parties facultative certificates, the appellate court determined in this case of first impression. The court affirmed a trial court order granting plaintiffs summary judgment in part.

  • Commonwealth v. Updike

    Publication Date: 2017-10-31
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Olson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1606

    The Commonwealths blood draw evidence collected prior to the U.S. Supreme Courts decision in Birchfield v. North Dakota was admissible under the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule as defendant only sought suppression under the federal constitution. The court reversed the trial courts suppression order and remanded for further proceedings.

  • Commonwealth v. Smith

    Publication Date: 2017-10-31
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Moulton
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1609

    The arresting officer involved in defendants case was not required to personally observe defendant involved in hand-to-hand illegal drug transactions and could rely on information provided by a fellow trooper, including a photo of the defendant, to determine whether he had reasonable suspicion to detain defendant. The court affirmed defendants judgment of sentence.

  • Commonwealth v. Succi

    Publication Date: 2017-10-31
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Shogan
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1610

    The trial court erred in finding that the defendant contractors actions were part of an ongoing course of conduct and, therefore, the statute of limitations had not run on the home improvement fraud and deceptive or fraudulent business practices charges against him. The court affirmed defendants judgment of sentence.

  • Commonwealth v. Carper

    Publication Date: 2017-10-31
    Practice Area: Constitutional Law | Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Olson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1607

    Defendant properly preserved his state constitutional claim that his blood draw evidence was inadmissible, and the appellate court concluded that such evidence was inadmissible given that no good-faith exception to the evidence exclusionary rule exists under the state constitution. The court affirmed an order granting defendants habeas corpus motion.

  • C.G. v. J.H.

    Publication Date: 2017-10-31
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Solano
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1569

    Defendant lacked standing to bring this custody matter against plaintiff, her former same-sex life partner and the biological mother of a minor child, where plaintiff never adopted the child and the evidence demonstrated that plaintiff never stood in loco parentis to the child. The court affirmed an order sustaining defendants preliminary objections.

  • Commonwealth v. McGarry

    Publication Date: 2017-10-31
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Dubow
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1608

    The U.S. Supreme Courts holding in Birchfield v. North Dakota did not apply in this case, where defendant refused to submit to breath testing, as opposed to blood testing; however, defendant was entitled to relief on appeal from a trial court order denying his petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act without conducting a hearing. The appellate court vacated and remanded for further proceedings.

  • Kovacevich v. Regional Produce Coop. Corp.

    Publication Date: 2017-10-31
    Practice Area: Occupational Safety and Health
    Industry: Distribution and Wholesale | Food and Beverage
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Solano
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1618

    Trial court properly dismissed appellants claims against wholesale market managing company based on a controlling employer argument derived from an OSHA compliance directive after appellant was injured by a pallet jack driven by his own employee because the policy appellant relied on did not determine rights or obligations or cause legal consequences and concerned only the scope of enforcement of OHSA requirements and managing company had assumed no duty regarding safety in the leased areas of the market

  • In the Interest of H.K.

    Publication Date: 2017-10-31
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Stabile
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1611

    Trial court erred in granting parents request for de novo hearing in dependency petition after orphans court had accepted masters report, when parent failed to object to hearing before master and had not shown cause for rehearing, and thus had no right to rehearing before trial judge. Order of the trial court reversed.

  • Commonwealth v. Wilson

    Publication Date: 2017-10-31
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Moulton
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1612

    Motion to suppress statements properly denied where, although defendant was initially illegally detained on an inactive warrant, any taint from the illegal arrest was attenuated where defendant voluntarily waived Miranda rights to make statements in response to co-defendants incriminating statements and evidence obtained from a search warrant thereunder. Judgment of sentence affirmed.