Filter This View

  • Busystore Ltd. in Liquidation v. Cushman & Wakefield of Pa., Inc. et al

    Publication Date: 2018-06-12
    Practice Area: Business Torts | Evidence | Expert Witnesses
    Industry: Real Estate
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge DuBois
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0682

    Defendant's expert, a professor of law and expert in Jewish law, could testify in this fraud case about the cultural norms and business practices in the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community, members of which were involved in a failed development project, but he could not testify regarding the criminal prosecution of the project developer since such testimony did not involve any specialized knowledge. The court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion to preclude.

  • Knopick v. Boyle

    Publication Date: 2018-06-12
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry: Legal Services
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Gantman
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0667

    Trial court properly ordered appellant to disclose an email a non-party sent to himself on his personal email because appellant lacked standing to assert the ordered disclosure was privileged since the attorney-client privilege belonged to the non-party, not to appellant. Affirmed.

  • Commonwealth v. Yorgey

    Publication Date: 2018-06-12
    Practice Area: Criminal Law | Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Dubow
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0688

    Motion to suppress evidence properly denied where record supported finding police were given consent to enter residence and observed drug paraphernalia in plain view. Judgment of sentence affirmed.

  • Ferguson v. Ghigiarelli et al

    Publication Date: 2018-06-05
    Practice Area: Evidence | Medical Malpractice
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County
    Judge: Judge Nealon
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0641

    The report of defendants' addiction expert was inadmissible to the extent it sought to establish that plaintiff consumed alcohol daily around the time of his fall since the record did not contain an adequate basis in fact for the expert's proffered opinions. The court granted plaintiff's motion in limine in part.

  • Commonwealth v. Gooseby-Byrd

    Publication Date: 2018-06-05
    Practice Area: Criminal Law | Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Murray
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0658

    DUI conviction affirmed where testimony that defendant did not operate the vehicle found not credible by trial court sitting as finder of fact. Judgment of sentence affirmed.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    New York Employment Law 2023

    Authors: Daniel A. Cohen, Joshua Feinstein

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Commonwealth v. Gould

    Publication Date: 2018-05-29
    Practice Area: Criminal Law | Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge McLaughlin
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0628

    Search by parole agent valid where agent personally observed and had third-party information providing reasonable suspicion defendant possessed contraband or evidence of parole violation, and where agent's search was intended to uncover parole violations rather than investigate penal code violations. Judgement of sentence affirmed.

  • Commonwealth v. Manivannan

    Publication Date: 2018-05-22
    Practice Area: Criminal Law | Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Ransom
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0581

    Addressing an issue of first impression, the court found the evidence insufficient to sustain defendant's conviction for unlawful use of a computer because lay witnesses were not competent to draw conclusions from information in the victim's email account setting that depicted multiple instances of disparate Internet Protocol addresses accessing her account from approximate geographic locations. The appellate court reversed defendant's judgment of sentence and remanded for a new trial.

  • Commonwealth v. Byrd

    Publication Date: 2018-05-15
    Practice Area: Criminal Law | Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Ott
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0564

    The trial court erred in holding that the commonwealth was required to prove defendant's consent to the recording of his jailhouse conversations under the mutual consent exception to the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act since the exception permits interception when a defendant knew or should have known that his conversations were recorded. The appellate court reversed and remanded.

  • Commonwealth v. Thran

    Publication Date: 2018-05-15
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Ott
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0575

    The trial court correctly refused to suppress the evidence in motorcyclists DUI because the phone tip the police received provided ample suspicion of impaired driving and the location where the officer found the motorcycle and its description and that of the driver corroborated the information given in the phone tip. Affirmed.

  • City of Philadelphia v. Sessions

    Publication Date: 2018-05-08
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Baylson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-0533

    Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 201, the court was permitted to take judicial notice of executive orders issued by U.S President Donald Trump and public statements by both President Trump and the U.S. Attorney regarding their efforts to withhold federal funding from sanctuary cities such as the City of Philadelphia. The court rendered an evidentiary ruling, taking judicial notice of the proffered statements.