Filter This View

  • Gregg v. Ameriprise Fin., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-09-25
    Practice Area: Consumer Protection | Dispute Resolution | Insurance Law
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Consulting | Insurance
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Kunselman
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1147

    Trial judge properly made a separate finding of fact in appellees' Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law action against insurance companies after the jury returned a defense verdict on the common law claims of fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation because common law misrepresentations and UTPCPL catchall violations presented distinct legal issues. Affirmed.

  • Kapcsos v. Benshoff

    Publication Date: 2018-08-14
    Practice Area: Civil Procedure | Contracts | Real Estate
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Kunselman
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0947

    Appeal quashed where parties and trial court erroneously skipped over order directing partition of property owned by parties as joint tenants with right of survivorship and instead entered order party to covey her interest to the other party. Appeal quashed.

  • S.T. v. R.W.

    Publication Date: 2018-07-24
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Kunselman
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0864

    Trial court erred in denying incarcerated mother's request for telephone contact with her daughter and in awarding sole legal custody to father because trial court's failure to notify mother of her right to request that she be present at the hearing via writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum was reversible error and trial court erroneously determined the extent of mother's "supervised physical custody" without proper consideration of all relevant factors. Order vacated.

  • Commonwealth v. Neysmith

    Publication Date: 2018-07-17
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Kunselman
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0829

    Consent to blood alcohol test voluntary, despite defendant being provided with unconstitutional implied consent warnings, where defendant requested the blood draw prior to being provided warnings in the belief the results of a blood alcohol test would vindicate him. Judgment of sentence affirmed.

  • Shaner v. Harriman

    Publication Date: 2018-06-26
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Kunselman
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0763

    Trial court erred in finding appellant in contempt for having "access" to a rifle in a shed in violation of a Protect from Abuse order because there was no proof that appellant had constructive possession of the rifle or that he had a wrongful intent to violate the PFA. Vacated.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Texas Personal Automobile Insurance Policy 2020

    Authors: Janet K. Colaneri

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Milby v. Pote

    Publication Date: 2018-06-26
    Practice Area: Contracts | Landlord Tenant Law | Real Estate
    Industry: Real Estate
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Kunselman
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0762

    Trial court erred in finding that trust lacked standing and that the MHCRA did not apply to its claims against mobile home park owners but the errors were harmless because trust failed to prove its claims in its civil action against owners and owners were entitled to eviction since trust failed to sign the new lease, pay the rent due or comply with park rules. Affirmed.

  • Commonwealth v. Johnson

    Publication Date: 2018-06-05
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Kunselman
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0659

    Trial court erroneously granted suppression of blood alcohol test results for suspect's mistaken belief about continued validity of enhanced criminal penalties for refusal to consent to blood draw and for erroneous imposition of requirement upon law enforcement to advise suspects of revised criminal procedure. Order of the trial court reversed, case remanded.

  • Trigg v. Children's Hosp. of Pittsburgh of UPMC

    Publication Date: 2018-05-29
    Practice Area: Civil Procedure
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Kunselman
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0620

    Trial judge was not entitled to the deference standard announced in McHugh v. Proctor & Gamble, 776 A.2d 266 in appellants' challenge to a jury selection process that involved the voir dire questioning of potential jurors outside the presence of the trial judge because it was essential that a judge personally witness voir dire and the failure to do so in this case was reversible error since it forced appellants to exhaust their peremptory challenges. Judgment vacated and case remanded.

  • Commonwealth v. Davis

    Publication Date: 2018-05-29
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Kunselman
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0622

    When the trial court found that police had probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of defendant's vehicle, it failed to consider the totality of the circumstances, including several facts that weighed heavily against the conclusion that probable cause existed. The appellate court reversed defendant's judgment of sentence and remanded.

  • Williams v. Taylor

    Publication Date: 2018-05-29
    Practice Area: Land Use and Planning | Real Estate
    Industry: Mining and Resources
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Kunselman
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0634

    The trial court correctly found that logging company was not entitled to a prescriptive easement on a lane running through landowner's land because substantial evidence supported the trial judge's findings that the lane passed through an "unenclosed woodland" and the unenclosed woodlands act barred a prescriptive easement. Affirmed.