Filter This View

  • Commonwealth v. Griffin

    Publication Date: 2019-05-20
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Baer
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0583

    The superior court did not err in affirming separate consecutive second strike mandatory minimum sentences for each conspiracy conviction and underlying crime conviction since under 42 Pa.C.S. §9714, a second-strike offender such as defendant is to receive separate mandatory minimum sentences for a conspiracy conviction and underlying offense conviction when both are listed as "crimes of violence." The high court affirmed defendant's judgment of sentence.

  • Commonwealth v. Perfetto

    Publication Date: 2019-05-13
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Baer
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0553

    Compulsory joinder statute required dismissal of misdemeanor DUI charges before municipal court when defendant was previously convicted by the traffic division of the municipal court of a summary traffic offense arising from the same incident. Order of the superior court reversed, order of the trial court reinstated.

  • Bayview Loan Servicing LLC v. Wicker

    Publication Date: 2019-04-15
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Baer
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0431

    The trial court did not err in allowing an employee of a successor bank, which was assigned defendants' mortgage from the original lender, to give testimony authenticating the loan documents under the business records exception to the hearsay rule where the witness provided information to justify a presumption of trustworthiness.

  • Commonwealth v. Gill

    Publication Date: 2019-04-08
    Practice Area: Criminal Law | Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Baer
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0388

    Superior court erroneously overruled trial court's admission of evidence of a subsequent crime committed by another individual when the superior court substituted the trial court's judgment of the evidence for its own. Order of the superior court reversed in part and vacated and remanded in part.

  • Commonwealth v. Montalvo

    Publication Date: 2019-04-08
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Baer
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0392

    PCRA court correctly denied guilt phase relief and granted penalty phase relief where record did not support appellant's new claims of self-defense and heat of passion but where prosecutor impermissibly told jury its death sentence verdict would be a "recommendation." Order of the PCRA court affirmed.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    New Jersey Estate Litigation 2014

    Authors: Michael R. Griffinger, Paul F. Cullum III

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Gallagher v. Geico Indem. Co.

    Publication Date: 2019-02-05
    Practice Area: Insurance Law
    Industry: Insurance
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Baer
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0116

    The superior court erred in upholding the trial court's grant of summary judgment to insurer in appellant's action seeking the stacked UIM coverage in the motorcycle and automobile insurance policies he bought from insurer because the "household vehicle exclusion" in the automobile policy was inconsistent with the requirements of 75 Pa.C.S. §1738 regarding waiver of UIM coverage and was invalid and unenforceable. Judgment vacated.

  • Commonwealth v. Norton

    Publication Date: 2019-02-05
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Baer
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0127

    Trial court properly exercised discretion to deny presentence motion to withdraw plea of nolo contendere when it concluded, based on the facts of the case, that defendant was making a bare assertion of innocence. Order of the superior court affirmed.

  • The Hartford Ins. Group v. Kamara

    Publication Date: 2018-12-04
    Practice Area: Employment Litigation | Insurance Law
    Industry: Insurance
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Baer
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1454

    Superior court erred in vacating the trial court's order dismissing workers' compensation insurer's complaint brought against the alleged third-party tortfeasor "on behalf of " claimant because insurer had no authority, statutory or otherwise, to pursue claimant's cause of action without claimant's voluntary participation as a party plaintiff or the contractual assignment of her claim. Vacated.

  • Dittman v. UPMC

    Publication Date: 2018-12-04
    Practice Area: Big Data | Labor Law
    Industry: Health Care | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Baer
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1441

    Employees could pursue negligence claim asserting purely economic damages arising from employer's failure to secure computer systems containing employees' personal and financial information subsequently stolen by a hacker. Order of the superior court reversed.

  • Nicolaou v. Martin

    Publication Date: 2018-10-30
    Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Baer
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1301

    Superior court erred by concluding as a matter of law that the statute of limitations was not tolled in plaintiff's medical malpractice action and finding she should have known by 2009 that she suffered from Lyme disease and that her health problems could have been caused by defendants' failure to diagnose and treat the condition because it was the province of the jury to determine if the discovery rule tolled the statute of limitations.