• Commonwealth v. Stahl

    Publication Date: 2023-02-20
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Colins
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 1522 WDA 2021

    Successive PCRA petition was untimely filed outside the one-year deadline, and governmental interference and newly discovered facts exceptions did not apply where appellant already knew of the facts underpinning his claims related to his all-female jury, nor could an untimely petition be used to assert a claim of ineffective assistance of PCRA counsel. Order of the trial court affirmed.

  • Commonwealth v. Midgley

    Publication Date: 2023-02-20
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge McLaughlin
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 166 MDA 2022

    Ineffective assistance of counsel claims were meritless where defendant expressly acknowledged at his plea hearing that he understood there was no guarantee of a particular sentence and that the trial court was not bound by the plea agreement between defendant and the commonwealth. Order of the PCRA court affirmed.

  • Commonwealth v. Thompson

    Publication Date: 2023-02-20
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Bender
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 2632 EDA 2021

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision that recognized that Pennsylvania Constitution was incompatible with the federal "automobile exception" did not implicitly overrule the inventory search exception as well since both exceptions were distinct, as inventory searches were conducted for "community caretaking" rather than investigation of crimes. Judgment of sentence affirmed.

  • Loftus v. Decker

    Publication Date: 2023-02-20
    Practice Area: Litigation
    Industry: Insurance | Transportation
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Nichols
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 611 WDA 2021

    Appellant workers' compensation carrier appealed the order denying its petition to intervene in action initiated by injured bus driver in a praecipe for writ of summons against other driver and court found the order was not an appealable collateral order because appellant had no legally enforceable interest and no right that needed to be protected. Appeal quashed.

  • Commonwealth v. Snyder

    Publication Date: 2023-02-20
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge McLaughlin
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 116 MDA 2022

    Sentence above aggravated range was not excessive where trial court expressly considered all information submitted by the parties and found the sentence necessary for the public's protection and defendant's rehabilitative needs, particularly due to the gravity of the offense that involved a violent stabbing during a road rage incident in which defendant left the victim to die at the side of the road. Judgment of sentence affirmed.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    New Jersey Arbitration Handbook 2024

    Authors: Hon. William A. Dreier, Robert E. Bartkus

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Myers v. Geer

    Publication Date: 2023-02-13
    Practice Area: Civil Procedure
    Industry: Legal Services
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Bowes
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 1519 EDA 2021

    Trial court erred in denying appellant's petition to vacate the administrative dismissal of his civil action because trial court relied on an incorrect procedural rule and overlooked the deferred status of appellant's case and the undisputed misrepresentations of appellant's attorney after his license was suspended provided an adequate explanation for appellant's delay in seeking to vacate the dismissal. Reversed.

  • Yoder v. McCarthy Constr., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2023-02-13
    Practice Area: Personal Injury
    Industry: Construction
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Bender
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 1605 EDA 2021

    Trial court erred in barring defendant's statutory employer defense in plaintiff's negligence action after he fell through a hole in a roof while working for roofing subcontractor and court found defendant met all five elements of the McDonald test, defendant was plaintiff's statutory employer and was immune from tort liability. Judgment vacated.

  • In re Amended & Restated Deed of Trust of Holdship

    Publication Date: 2023-02-06
    Practice Area: Trusts and Estates
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Colins
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 166 WDA 2022

    Orphans' court properly sustained bank's demurrer to beneficiaries' claims for compelled distributions and seeking to remove bank as co-trustee of trust because beneficiaries' petition did not set forth factual allegations upon which the recovery they sought could be granted and they did not allege that bank breached any of its duties under the trust and the Pennsylvania Uniform Trust Act. Affirmed.

  • Smith v. O'Brien

    Publication Date: 2023-02-06
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Kunselman
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 837 EDA 2022

    Defendant appealed a discovery order directing her to disclose a conversation with her deceased husband and court found the discovery order did not satisfy the second and third prongs of the collateral-order doctrine because no harm or discord could befall a marriage that no longer existed. Appeal quashed.

  • In re: Adoption of A.M.W.

    Publication Date: 2023-02-06
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Murray
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 519 MDA 2021

    The trial court applied the wrong standard in evaluating former stepfather's asserted in loco parentis status for purposes of standing in an adoption proceeding, as precedent required the court to consider whether he had a genuine and substantial interest in formalizing a permanent parental relationship with the adoptee-child, which surpassed the interest of ordinary, unrelated strangers. The appellate court vacated and remanded.