Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
71 results for '* judge:"Justice Mundy"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2019-11-25
Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
Industry: Health Care | Insurance | State and Local Government
Court: Supreme Court
Judge: Justice Mundy
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 19-1388
Superior court erred in upholding the statute of repose in the MCARE act because it was not substantially related to controlling the costs of malpractice insurance rates and providing actuarial predictability to insurers. Reversed.
Publication Date: 2019-11-18
Practice Area: Constitutional Law
Industry: State and Local Government
Court: Supreme Court
Judge: Justice Mundy
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 19-1354
Criminal defendant not entitled to retroactive application of new constitutional rule where he or she fails to preserve the issue underlying the rule at all stages of litigation. Order of the superior court affirmed.
Publication Date: 2019-10-07
Practice Area: Bankruptcy | Criminal Law
Industry: Construction
Court: Supreme Court
Judge: Justice Mundy
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 19-1176
Restitution orders could not be discharged in bankruptcy since they served criminal justice goals and were therefore exempt from discharge under the code. Order of the superior court affirmed.
Publication Date: 2019-08-05
Practice Area: Labor Law
Industry: State and Local Government
Court: Supreme Court
Judge: Justice Mundy
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 19-0906
Because the Municipalities Planning Code did not expressly establish that zoning officers were required to direct the implementation of policy or could exercise independent discretion to implement policy, a municipality could not withdraw the zoning officer from the collective bargaining unit where it failed to present evidence of actual job duties. Order of the commonwealth court reversed.
Publication Date: 2019-08-05
Practice Area: Real Estate
Industry: State and Local Government
Court: Supreme Court
Judge: Justice Mundy
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 19-0900
In this case of first impression, the high court concluded that petitioners' proposed new use of their parcel for a seasonal cabin did not meet the requisite "strictest necessity" to justify taking a portion of a neighboring property under the Private Road Act where they had adequate access to their property for the existing use. The high court reversed the commonwealth court's ruling.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Joseph S. Britton
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2019-07-01
Practice Area: Civil Procedure
Industry: Health Care | Legal Services
Court: Supreme Court
Judge: Justice Mundy
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 19-0739
The high court concluded that remand was necessary for application of a newly articulated work product waiver analysis providing that the attorney work product doctrine is not waived by disclosure unless the alleged work product is disclosed to an adversary or disclosed in a manner that significantly increases the likelihood that an adversary/anticipated adversary will obtain such disclosure. The high court affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
Publication Date: 2019-06-24
Practice Area: Public Utilities
Industry: Energy | State and Local Government
Court: Supreme Court
Judge: Justice Mundy
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 19-0719
A $1.8 million penalty imposed upon electricity supplier was affirmed where supplier waived constitutional challenge by failing to timely raise the issue and where intentional overcharging of customers provided substantial evidence to support size of penalty.
Publication Date: 2019-06-24
Practice Area: Election and Political Law
Industry:
Court: Supreme Court
Judge: Justice Mundy
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 19-0724
Commonwealth court properly found that challenged anti-fusion provisions of the election code did not violate the equal protection clause of the United States constitution or Art. 1, §§5, 7, and 20 of the Pennsylvania constitution. Affirmed.
Publication Date: 2019-05-13
Practice Area: Criminal Law
Industry:
Court: Supreme Court
Judge: Justice Mundy
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 19-0549
The superior court erred in holding that the trial court's failure to address the factors set forth in Miller v. Alabama on record was moot, as a court sentencing a juvenile for a crime for which life without parole is an available sentence must review on record the Miller factors, regardless of whether the defendant is ultimately sentenced to life without parole. The high court vacated defendant's judgment of sentence and remanded.
Publication Date: 2019-04-08
Practice Area: Constitutional Law | Criminal Law
Industry:
Court: Supreme Court
Judge: Justice Mundy
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 19-0389
Denial of Atkins claim vacated where PCRA court erroneously relied upon lay family members' failure to intervene as evidence of defendant's lack of functional problems and where PCRA court failed to explain credibility and factual determinations of competing expert testimony. Order of the PCRA court vacated and remanded.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read