Filter This View

  • Goodwin v. Goodwin

    Publication Date: 2020-12-28
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Elliot
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-1412

    Husband challenged trial court's equitable distribution in a divorce action, arguing life insurance proceeds that wife received on her son's death were marital property and court found the life insurance proceeds were a gift, not marital property, and the distribution scheme was not an abuse of discretion. Affirmed.

  • Commonwealth v. Hernandez

    Publication Date: 2019-09-09
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Elliot
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-1057

    Defendant did not establish that his sentence constituted a de facto life sentence, necessitating a finding by the sentencing court that he was incapable of rehabilitation, where he failed to show that he had no plausible chance of survival until the minimum release date. The appellate court affirmed defendant's judgment of sentence.

  • Commonwealth v. Nedab

    Publication Date: 2018-10-02
    Practice Area: Constitutional Law | Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Elliot
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1173

    Defendant's Post Conviction Relief Act petition was untimely in the absence of authority that either the U.S. Supreme Court or the state's high court had recognized a recent appellate court decision addressing life sentences without the possibility of parole for juvenile offenders. The appellate court affirmed defendant's judgment of sentence.

  • Stange v. Janssen Pharm., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-02-06
    Practice Area: Products Liability
    Industry: Pharmaceuticals
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Elliot
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0117

    Defendant drug companies were not entitled to JNOV in plaintiffs failure to warn action because plaintiffs expert used a generally accepted scientific process to conclude that defendants drug caused plaintiffs gynecomastia, the trial court properly instructed the jury on combined negligence and properly refused to instruct the jury on plaintiffs future damages claim and the evidence fully supported the jurys decision but the coordinating judge erred in granting a global motion barring punitive damages claims. Affirmed in part, r