Filter This View

  • In the Interest of D.J.B.

    Publication Date: 2020-03-09
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Kunselman
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0255

    Appellant appealed juvenile court's finding he committed indecent assault by touching complainant without her consent and court found that, contrary to appellant's assertion, juvenile court did not show partiality or predetermine the result when it asked attorneys in a sidebar conference to consider a lesser charge and complainant's testimony was sufficient evidence. Affirmed.

  • Commonwealth v. Pacheco

    Publication Date: 2020-02-10
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Kunselman
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0127

    While the government did in fact conduct a "search" when it obtained defendant's real-time cell site location information, the search at issue was constitutional because it was conducted pursuant to warrants properly issued in accordance with Pennsylvania's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act. The superior court affirmed.

  • Wilson v. Parker

    Publication Date: 2020-02-10
    Practice Area: Real Estate
    Industry: Real Estate
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Kunselman
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0140

    Trial court erred in applying the law of unjust enrichment in an action over an alleged oral contract to sell property and appellants were entitled to a portion of the money they paid to purchase the property under the unenforceable oral contract and they were entitled to recoup the cost of the improvements they made. Vacated.

  • Jones v. Plumer

    Publication Date: 2020-01-27
    Practice Area: Premises Liability
    Industry: Hospitality and Lodging
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Kunselman
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0077

    Dead Man's Act barred plaintiff's testimony as to the causation of her fall, and the Act's application was not waived simply because decedent did not actually witness plaintiff's fall or because decedent's estate relied upon plaintiff's demand letter in support of its motion for summary judgment. Order of the trial court affirmed.

  • Commonwealth v. Moye

    Publication Date: 2019-12-16
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Kunselman
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-1436

    The trial court erred when it sentenced defendant, who was a juvenile when he committed murder, to life without the possibility of parole as the commonwealth presented no evidence regarding defendant's inability to be rehabilitated and, thus, failed to rebut the presumption against life without parole as an appropriate individualized sentence. The appellate court vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Library of Pennsylvania Family Law Forms, Fourth Edition

    Authors: Joseph S. Britton

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Commonwealth v. Johnson

    Publication Date: 2019-10-28
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Kunselman
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-1257

    Defendant's former prosecution for driving with a suspended license occurred before a court that lacked jurisdiction over another offense of possession of heroin with intent to deliver; thus, the court of common pleas could properly assert its separate, original jurisdiction over that charge under 18 Pa.C.S. §112. The appellate court affirmed defendant's judgment of sentence.

  • Commonwealth v. Batista

    Publication Date: 2019-10-14
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Kunselman
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-1203

    The odor of fresh marijuana could still give rise to probable cause for a search warrant despite the legalization of medical marijuana when only a small number of growers were permitted to grow marijuana in the state such that the odor gave rise to a fair probability that the marijuana was illegal. Judgment of sentence affirmed.

  • Engleman v. Ethicon, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2019-10-07
    Practice Area: Damages | Products Liability
    Industry: Health Care | Manufacturing
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Kunselman
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-1177

    Trial court acted within discretion to reduce punitive damages award as little as necessary to comport with applicable New Jersey punitive damages cap ratio of five times the compensatory damages award. Judgment affirmed as modified.

  • Mohn v. Bucks County Republican Comm.

    Publication Date: 2019-09-23
    Practice Area: Election and Political Law
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Kunselman
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-1076

    Court deferred an appeal of county political party's discipline of its committeeperson because the subject matter of the appeal directly implicated the election code and the legislature had designated the Commonwealth Court as the exclusive forum for election related appeals. Appeal transferred.

  • Johnson v. Neshaminy Shore Picnic Park

    Publication Date: 2019-09-02
    Practice Area: Legislation | Trusts and Estates
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Kunselman
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-1032

    Father challenged trial court's grant of mother's petition for forfeiture of father's share of wrongful death proceeds after child's accidental death and court found trial court did not abuse its discretion because the amendments to the failure-to-support clause in 20 Pa.C.S. §2106(b) were clearly intended to prohibit a non-performing parent from collecting a windfall in the tragic event of the child's death. Affirmed.