• Commonwealth v. Holt

    Publication Date: 2022-05-16
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Donohue
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-0535

    Evidence was sufficient to convict for first-degree murder where it showed that defendant fired multiple shots in quick succession, with several striking the victim, and therefore it could support an inference that defendant intentionally aimed his firearm at the victim. Judgment of sentence affirmed.

  • Commonwealth v. Edwards

    Publication Date: 2022-04-25
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Baer
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-0452

    In an opinion announcing the judge of the court, the high court found that the prosecution's Batson violation during voir dire was not undertaken recklessly with a conscious disregard for a substantial risk that defendant would be denied a fair trial and did not constitute a prosecutorial tactic designed to provoke him into seeking a mistrial. The high court affirmed the denial of defendant's motion to dismiss charges.

  • Carter v. Chapman

    Publication Date: 2022-03-28
    Practice Area: Election and Political Law
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Baer
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-0342

    Court selected proposed congressional redistricting map that started from prior map, kept political subdivisions together in the same district, and scored better than average in terms of partisan fairness. Exceptions granted in part and dismissed as moot in part.

  • Commonwealth v. Barr

    Publication Date: 2022-01-31
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Baer
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-0104

    Given the legalization of medical marijuana, the odor of marijuana could be a factor in supporting probable cause for a warrantless search but could not establish probable cause by itself. Judgment of the superior court vacated, order of the trial court reinstated.

  • Corman v. Acting Sec'y, Pennsylvania Dep't of Health

    Publication Date: 2022-01-24
    Practice Area: Government
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Wecht
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-0085

    The commonwealth court did not err in finding that Pennsylvania's Acting Secretary of Health lacked the power to issue a mask mandate requiring individuals in state schools to wear face coverings as a means of controlling the spread of COVID-19. The high court affirmed the commonwealth court's ruling.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Constangy’s Field Guide to The Americans with Disabilities Act and Its Amendments 2014

    Authors: Michael D. Malfitano

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Gen. Motors. Corp. v. Commonwealth

    Publication Date: 2022-01-24
    Practice Area: Tax
    Industry: Automotive | State and Local Government
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Baer
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-0083

    Nextel, which held flat caps on net loss carryover deductions violated the Uniformity Clause, applied retroactively to prior statutes enacting NLC caps as Nextel was based on well-established constitutional law striking down tax statutes treating similarly-situated taxpayers disparately. Order of the commonwealth court affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part.

  • Metal Green Inc. v. City of Philadelphia

    Publication Date: 2022-01-24
    Practice Area: Land Use and Planning
    Industry: Real Estate | State and Local Government
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Todd
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-0081

    Minimum variance analysis factor applied to use variance applications, while blighted properties were not entitled to a relaxed standard in the minimum variance analysis. Order of the commonwealth court affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part.

  • O'Donnell v. Allegheny County N. Tax Collection Comm.

    Publication Date: 2022-01-24
    Practice Area: Tax
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Wecht
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-0084

    The trial court did not err in finding that a whistleblower payment made to plaintiff, who alleged that his employer violated the federal False Claims Act, was taxable as earned income at the local level since the qui tam award was taxable as compensation under §303 of the Pennsylvania Tax Reform Code. The high court reversed the commonwealth court's ruling.

  • In the Interest of Y.W.-B.

    Publication Date: 2022-01-24
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Donohue
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-0067

    Superior court erred in affirming trial court's grant of petitions to compel to allow Philadelphia Department of Human Services to enter mother's home because its probable cause analysis failed where it did not explain the "link" between DHS's petition to enter the home and the allegation mother may not have fed children on one day over an eight-hour period, it improperly considered mother's prior experiences with DHS because trial court placed no reliance on that and it failed to address the reliability of the evidence in the petitio

  • Keystone RX LLC v. Bureau of Workers' Comp. Fee Review Hearing Office

    Publication Date: 2022-01-17
    Practice Area: Employment Litigation
    Industry: Health Care | Insurance | Retail
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Baer
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-0048

    Commonwealth court correctly affirmed hearing officer's order that a non-treating healthcare provider could not challenge a utilization review determination but erred in concluding the act improperly failed to account for the due process rights of non-treating providers and engrafting onto the act a requirement that non-treating providers receive notice and an opportunity to intervene in UR proceedings. Affirmed in part.