Filter This View

  • Cagey v. Commonwealth, Dept. of Transportation

    Publication Date: 2018-03-06
    Practice Area: Government
    Industry: Real Estate | State and Local Government | Transportation
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Donohue
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0214

    PennDOT was not immune from suit in this case, as plaintiffs allegations that PennDOT created a dangerous condition by negligently designing and installing a dangerous guardrail fit squarely within the Sovereign Immunity Acts real estate exception. The court reversed the intermediate court and remanded.

  • Weaver v. Commonwealth

    Publication Date: 2018-03-06
    Practice Area: Administrative Law
    Industry:
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge McCullough
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0232

    Trial court erred as a matter of law in sustaining drivers appeal of the three month suspension of his operating privileges for violating §1786(f), operating a vehicle without the required financial responsibility, because driver pled guilty to violating §1786(f) and admitted that he did not obtain insurance until 17 minutes after the traffic stop was initiated. Reversed.

  • The Delaware Riverkeeper Network v. Sunoco Pipeline L.P.

    Publication Date: 2018-03-06
    Practice Area: Energy and Natural Resources | Land Use and Planning | Public Utilities
    Industry: Energy
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Simpson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0229

    The trial court properly found that township lacked authority to zone out a public utility pipeline service or facility regulated by the PUC based on field preemption and conflict preemption, statutory analysis showed the general assembly intended the PUC to be preeminent in regulation of public utilities and plaintiffs arguments based on the townships constitutional duties under the ERA were not persuasive. Affirmed.

  • Commonwealth v. Porambo

    Publication Date: 2018-03-06
    Practice Area: Criminal Law | Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Carbon County
    Judge: Judge Serfass
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0190

    The evidence at trial was sufficient to find defendant guilty of driving too slow for conditions in violation of 75 Pa.C.S. §3364(a) where the arresting officer observed defendant cause a traffic jam due to her slow driving and credibly disputed defendants claim that another vehicle caused her to drive too slowly. The court denied defendants motion for judgment of acquittal.

  • Commonwealth v. Fulton

    Publication Date: 2018-03-06
    Practice Area: Criminal Law | Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Donohue
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0217

    Police violated defendants constitutional rights when they searched his cell phone for information in a criminal investigation without a warrant. The court reversed the intermediate appellate court and remanded.

  • Commonwealth v. Lacoste

    Publication Date: 2018-03-06
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Adams County
    Judge: Judge Campbell
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0192

    On a criminal defendants pre-trial motions, the court ruled that: 1) defendant was entitled to have defense subpoenas sealed until the time of trial; 2) defendant could confront the commonwealths witness regarding his parole status; and 3) defendant could introduce evidence regarding decedents prior bad acts.

  • Medinski v. Prociuk

    Publication Date: 2018-03-06
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Carbon County
    Judge: Judge Matika
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0193

    The court granted defendants motion for judgment on the pleadings regarding plaintiffs breach of fiduciary duty and accounting claims, because plaintiffs failed to timely file a responsive pleading to the factual allegations contained in defendants answer and new matter.

  • Commonwealth v. Murphy

    Publication Date: 2018-03-06
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Bender
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0219

    Defendant could not satisfy the new retroactive exception to the timeliness requirement for a Post Conviction Relief Act petition in the absence of a high court ruling that Commonwealth v Muniz, which addressed the lifetime registration provisions of Sexual Offenders Notification Act, applied retroactively. The appellate court affirmed defendants judgment of sentence.

  • United Healthcare Serv., Inc. v. Cephalon, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-03-06
    Practice Area: Civil Procedure
    Industry: Health Care | Pharmaceuticals
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Goldberg
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0231

    Defendants challenge to the courts exercise of personal jurisdiction failed because the defendant Indian company was the succes-sor-in-interest to a Delaware corporation, plaintiff sufficiently pled the co-conspirator jurisdiction theory and Delaware corporation had been defending claims identical to those raised in this case without challenging the courts jurisdiction for years. Motion to dismiss denied.

  • Court v. LLB Gym, LLC

    Publication Date: 2018-03-06
    Practice Area: Damages | Personal Injury
    Industry: Entertainment and Leisure
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Pratter
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0221

    Employer could not use CHIRAs prohibition on using protected information in hiring decisions as a shield against liability for negligent hiring and supervision, particularly where staff testified that they would not have hired employee with knowledge of protected information. Motion for reconsideration denied.